Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Holocaust

2021-08-17T18:35:13Z

Burke39: removed nonsense statement

[[Image:Warsaw ghetto.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Jewish families are forced from the Warsaw Ghetto in the aftermath of its destruction by the SS in 1943. Their final destination was the killing center at Treblinka.]]
The '''Holocaust''' was systematic destruction by the [[Nazis]] of [[Jews|Jewish culture]], society, and, in ''die Endlösung'' (the '''Final Solution'''), the lives of Jews, Slavs, the disabled, Communists, Roma, and all others viewed as racially inferior, from 1933 to 1945. Before [[Hitler]] and the [[Nazis]] came to national power in 1933, they [[demonize]]d the Jews as subhuman and the cause of all [[Germany]]'s troubles. Once in power, the Nazis first removed the Jews from positions of power and prestige, initially by [[gun control]];<ref>See many articles from [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]</ref> from 1938–41 they imposed severe restrictions on Jews in Germany (many of whom fled). The systematic killings started in 1941, as the [[SS]] under [[Heinrich Himmler]] rounded up all the Jews they could find in the areas under Nazi control, and ultimately killed about 6 million through mobile SS death squads and in the extermination camps. Millions of non-Jews were also killed in separate Nazi operations.

The Holocaust was known but downplayed between 1945–1960, but since 1960 has become one of the central memories and horrors of [[World War II]], shaping policies by and towards [[Israel]] and profoundly shaping the modern conceptions of guilt and evil.

==Origins==
Hatred of the Jews has a long history all over Europe, but the modern forms of antisemitism emerged in the 19th century as a new spirit of nationalism allowed some Germans to sharply differentiate themselves from the Jews, a cultural subgroup that was well integrated into German society. By the end of the century, ant-semitic politicians and organized movements had emerged. Antisemitism was muted during [[World War I]], but exploded in 1919 as the defeated war veterans looked about for someone to blame for the national disgrace.

===Stage 1: to 1933===
The Nazi Party emerged among veterans in the early 1920s, with a violent attack on Jews as [[Adolf Hitler]]'s central theme. After years of struggling to push their ideology into the masses through propaganda and violence, the Nazi Party in Germany came to power in January 1933, with Hitler as Chancellor, with his ideology firmly entrenched within the party. In his book ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler expounded on the idea that the Aryan race, of which he was a part, was the so-called “master race”, and had a moral right and duty to subjugate the world; in the way stood the ''untermenschen'' (“sub-humans”), which, according to the Nazis, were meant to serve the master race as slaves. At the very bottom were the Jews, who were depicted as an evil race bent on world domination.

The Nazis violently hated all the Jews and everything for which they stood. They worked relentlessly toward the goal of removing all possible Jewish influences. Starting in the 1920s (when they were a small party) with a violently anti-Semitic rhetoric that blamed Jews for all the problems of Germany and the modern world, the Nazis defined Jews as a permanent “race” that would never change and could never be improved. The Nazis also strongly disliked Christianity as being too Jewish. Their goal was to return to a pre-Christian, all-Aryan (imaginary) world.

The Nazi goal was first to remove all Jewish influence, then deport all Jews from Europe.

===Stage 2: 1933–38===
The second stage of Nazi policy concerning Jews, from 1933 to 1938, when Hitler was dictator in a peacetime Germany, involved the removal of Jews from all public office. The Nazis encouraged the Jews to leave and half of the Jewish population in Germany did so (including famous scientist [[Albert Einstein]] and the teenaged [[Henry Kissinger]]). The Nazis opened Dachau and other “concentration camps” to punish thousands of their political enemies—including many Jews. About 1,000 Jews were murdered in concentration camps inside Germany before 1939; these were distinct from the death camps that were opened in 1942 in Poland.

Jewish businesses began feeling the effects of a boycott that began on April 1, 1933, followed by the dismissal of Jewish civil service workers, judges, and university professors a week later. On May 10, some ten days after laws were enacted which prevented Jewish children from attending public schools except by quota, thousands of university students and professors stormed bookstores and libraries to remove books they deemed “un-Germanic” and opposed to Nazi teachings, throwing them into public bonfires. The [[Nuremberg Laws]] were enacted in 1935, which revoked German citizenship from Jews as well as declaring the marriage between a Jew and a [[German]] illegal. By 1938, the political and economic foundations of German Jewry were completely decimated.

===Stage 3: 1938–41===
{{main|Kristallnacht}}

Stage three, from 1938 to 1941, involved increasingly severe and humiliating restrictions for Jews. “Kristallnacht” in November 1938 was a systematic violent attack on all synagogues. World public opinion grew hostile to the Nazi actions; they responded by supporting pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic political movements in France and other countries, including the “German-American Bund.” After invading Poland in September 1939, the Nazis forced two million Jews into a few ghettos with below-starvation food allotments. Before the war plans were made to start deporting Jews from Germany. The war meant Nazi control of millions of Jews in the east and occupied west as well, and deportation became impossible. That left extermination as the Nazi plan.

====Crystal Night====
On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in Paris and upset over his family's forced deportation to Poland, shot the third secretary (Ernst vom Rath) to the German ambassador in France, who died two days later. His assassination touched off a wave of riots on November 9, seemingly at the behest of the Nazi minister of propaganda, [[Joseph Goebbels]], but this was expanded and organized better with the issuing of orders by the deputy chief of the SS, [[Reinhard Heydrich]], later that evening, who specified that SS and SA units in various cities would march out with sledgehammers against Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues - but in civilian clothes only (to symbolize the “righteous” anger of the German people). Business could not be looted, as the property inside was deemed property of the state; Jewish property near German shops and homes could not be burned, but smashed; and many Jewish males, particularly the wealthy, were subject to arrest. Over 35,000 men were arrested that night, and according to figures released by Heydrich the total number of arrests exceeded 100,000; 815 Jewish businesses were destroyed, 191 synagogues were destroyed or demolished, and over 2,000 were dead. By the end of the week, local jails as well as the new [[Buchenwald]] and [[Dachau]] concentration camps were quickly filled. The Jews were declared responsible for the damages done to their property and ordered to pay the staggering sum of one billion Reichmarks.

The sidewalks were littered with shards of the expensive storefront glass that was preferred for shops in Germany and neighboring [[Austria]], which was called ''Kristallglas'' for its high-quality. The amount of glass left behind gave the incident its name: ''Kristallnacht'' (“Crystal Night”), or the Night of Broken Glass.

====World War II: 1939–41====
When World War II in Europe began in the fall of 1939, Jews in Germany were completely marginalized. They could not own property, use parks, associate with Germans, enter a library or museum, work in any professional field or engage in business, nor could their children attend public schools. Public transportation was forbidden to them in 1941, and the wearing of the yellow Star of David badge on their clothing became mandatory. They were also, prior to September 1, forced to migrate from countries and territories which had come under Hitler's wing (the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland), with many being deported to Poland.

====Poland====
By September 21, 1939, Poland was now the “General Government” protectorate under former lawyer [[Hans Frank]], and on that day Heydrich ordered the establishment of ''Judenrates'' (Jewish councils) which comprised 24 men - political leaders and rabbis – and whose personal responsibility was to carry out, to the letter, all German orders. This would include supplying people for work details, usually mundane tasks like digging ditches to amuse their Nazi overlords. Later, they were required to supply thousands of people a day for the “work” camps of [[Treblinka]], [[Sobibor]], [[Belzec]], and new one under construction near the town of Oswiecim, which the Germans called [[Auschwitz]].

Thousands, nearly 30% of the total population of Warsaw, were crammed into just over 2% of the city's total land, a density of 200,000 people per square mile. Disease and malnutrition would take its toll, but for the German overlords this was a minor inconvenience. The ghetto was a temporary place to hold all of Europe's Jews until a final solution was determined, and when the Nazis attacked its ally, the Soviet Union, in June 1941, the killing began in earnest.

====Black soldiers====
The Germans did not generally commit atrocities against Allied soldiers in the West in 1940, with one major exception. About 40,000 black African combat troops in the French Army became targets of the Nazis. German units, acting on the own in accord with longstanding racial hatred of Africans, shot about 1500 to 3000 black soldiers in French uniforms after they had surrendered.<ref>Raffael Scheck, ''Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers in 1940'' (2006) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24173 online review].</ref>

===Stage 4: 1941–42===
Stage 4 began when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. All Russian Jews were assumed to be Communist agents and large scale killing of political enemies began in Poland. Special units of the SS, the Security Police, and the Security Service (Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Einsatz- and Sonderkommandos) not only massacred large numbers of Jews, but routinely included handicapped persons in open-air mass shootings. Seven of the “Einsatzgruppen” rounded up and shot many Polish Catholic priests, intellectuals, and political leaders. Another five units (with 3,000 men) followed the Red Army and executed Communist commissars and partisans, and about 600,000 Russian Jews.

====The Einsatzgruppen====
[[Image:Babi Yar.jpg|right|150px|left|thumb|1943 German photo of Soviet POWs forced to dig up the thousands of Jews killed at Babi Yar two years before; the Nazis destroyed the evidence by burning the bodies.]]
Alongside the German Army were special mobile units whose job it was to locate and kill Jews, Gypsies, Soviets commissars, and others deemed unfit in the areas controlled by the army. These ''Einsatzgruppen'' (“special units”) were also aided by local populations who felt the Germans had relieved them of [[Soviet]] occupation as well as sharing a hatred for Jews and other minorities. Making no difference between young or old, male or female, the Einsatzgruppen killed 70,000 Jews at Ponary, near Vilnius, [[Lithuania]]; 33,771 Jews were machine-gunned in a ravine known as Babi Yar near [[Kiev]], [[Ukraine]], between [[September]] 28–29, 1941;<ref>[http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm]</ref> 9,000 Jews were killed at the Ninth Fort at Kaunas, Lithuania, on October 28, of which half of the dead were children. On November 30 in the Rumbula Forest outside of Riga, Latvia, between 25,000-28,000 were killed.

By mid-1941, the Ukrainian SSR had the largest population of Jews in Europe. The addition of the eastern provinces of Poland in late 1939, as well as the seizure of sections of Romanian territory in June 1940, led to some 2.7 million Jews living within the borders of the newly enlarged republic. About 85% lived in cities. By 1944, 1.6 million of these Jews had died at the hands of the Germans and their allies and auxiliaries. Unlike the majority of the Holocaust's later victims who died in the industrialized mass murder of the death camps, the overwhelming bulk of Ukraine's Jews died in mass shootings during the initial stages of the war.

The killings were done in first and second waves, with the bodies buried in mass graves. When the Soviet Red Army threatened and carried out counter-offensives to reclaim lost territory, special units made up of concentration camp inmates (''sonderkomandos'') would return to the sites, dig up the bodies, and burn them in mass pyres, destroying the evidence of their crimes. The number of individual persons killed by the Einsatzgruppen has been estimated at a minimum of one million.

===Stage 5: 1942–1944===
Stage 5 began at The [[Wannsee Conference]] in January 1942 began stage five of Nazi power; it was then that top Nazis decided on a “Final Solution” —to round up and secretly execute all the Jews of Europe. Killing centers were opened in Poland, and thousands of trainloads of Jews were transported there. Jews were gassed immediately upon arrival. Over three million Jews (and numbers of gypsies and other hated groups) were murdered, mostly in 1942–1943.

====Wannsee Conference====
On January 20, 1942 at a villa near Berlin named Wannsee a conference was convened by Heydrich to implement methods and ideas for a "final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). At the conference were fifteen men, among them Heydrich's head of Jewish affairs, [[Adolf Eichmann]], who would be instrumental in providing the logistical plans for removing the Jews to the camps. The men represented government agencies, such as the Gestapo, the Race and Resettlement Office, the SS, as well as a representative from the General Government in Poland. As Heydrich explained near the beginning of the conference, ideas were in play on relocating Jews:
:''“Another possible solution of the [Jewish] problem has now taken the place of emigration—i.e., evacuation of the Jews to the east…Such activities are, however, to be considered as provisional actions, but practical experience is already being collected which is of greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish problem.”''

The minutes of the meeting were kept, but were edited by Heydrich. The language used contains euphemisms in place of what was really said. ''Evacuation of Jews to the east'' and ''resettlement'' meant relocation to the concentration and extermination camps in Poland; ''special handling'' regarded the killing of Jews, either through slave labor in which the Jew was worked to death, or being killed immediately on arrival. The ''final solution'' was put into practice within a few months of the conference, as the bullets of guns and the exhaust of carbon monoxide were replaced by the more efficient killing methods installed in the first gas chambers.

===Stage 6: 1944–45===
Stage 6 arrived when the Soviet armies overran the Polish camps in 1944–45 and, liberated the survivors.

But the killing continued unabated, even to the last week of the war. As territory was regained by Soviet forces, the death camps were evacuated of survivors and destroyed as much as possible in a futile attempt to hide the evidence. The survivors were moved west into Germany, usually in hellish death marches, and interned in concentration camps where death still awaited them; such killing by the S.S. took priority over military matters at times.
[[Image:Ike at Ordruf.jpg|left|150px|thumb|General Dwight D. Eisenhower saw for himself the carnage wrought by the Nazis when he toured the Ohrdruf concentration camp on April 12, 1945. These prisoners were executed prior to the camp's liberation.]]

In all, six million Jews were murdered; most of the 300,000 survivors emigrated to the United States or Israel.

==The people involved==
Analytically, the people involved in the Holocaust can be divided into the following groups:

===Victims===
Millions were victimized by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. The Jews were always the principal targets; [[Anne Frank]] in the Netherlands was the most famous victim. However, the Nazis also systematically hunted down and murdered the Roma people (“Gypsies”). They also targeted special enemies, including Communist activists, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals (Femmes faction), and people with disabilities. The last group was the target of euthanasia programs carried out in German hospitals in 1939–1941. Some of these programs were stopped when German Christian leaders mobilized public opinion against them.

===Perpetrators===
Under the guidance of an all-powerful Führer (Hitler), the Nazis believed fervently in force, violence, and terror as their best weapons. Many of the most fanatical Nazis joined the SS, which carried out most of the executions. The Final Solution was directed by [[Heinrich Himmler]], chief of the SS and Minister of the Interior. His top aide was [[Reinhard Heydrich]], head of the SD and Gestapo, then after 1939, of all the secret police and security agencies grouped into the RSHA; he was assassinated by Czech commandos with British help in 1942. [[Adolf Eichmann]] was the senior SS bureaucrat in charge of handling deportation and transportation. However, regular German army police units also systematically killed large numbers of civilians and POWs on the Eastern Front.<ref>After the war, West Germany recognized its guilt and made large financial payments to Israel; Communist East Germany refused to do the same.</ref>

====Endlösung====
[[Image:Heydrich.jpg|right|150px|thumb|''Obergruppenführer'' Reinhard Heydrich, the man who convened the Wannsee Conference with the intention of determining a "final solution to the Jewish question".]]
:''To Gruppenführer Heydrich:''
:''Supplementing the task assigned to you by the decree of January 24, 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I hereby charge you to carry out preparations as regards organizational, financial, and material matters for a total solution (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in all the territories of Europe under German occupation.''
:''Where the competency of other central organizations touches on this matter, these organizations are to collaborate.''
:''I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish question.'' (Order from Hermann Göring to Reinhard Heydrich, July 31, 1941)

====The death camps====
[[Image:Hgdye56.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Selektion'' of Hungarian Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers.]]
In the early years of Nazi Germany concentration camps were built with the expressed purpose of housing political prisoners; this was quickly expanded to Jews and other people the Nazis considered undesirable. By 1942 new camps were built in eastern Poland as death camps; the victims, once targeted by the Einsatzgruppen coming to them, had been rounded up by units of the Army and Waffen-SS, and forced to travel to their own destruction. The victims were packed tightly into cattle cars - so tight in fact that many would die standing up – and transported by rail to the new extermination camps of Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, [[Majdanek]], and Belzec. The camps were essentially factories which specialized in death, making the process from arrival to counting to shower to disposal coldly efficient.

As they arrived the victims were divided in two: those fit for work, usually young to middle aged men, or possessed a special skill needed in the camp, and the remainder sent for delousing in the showers. Deceived to the end, the “showers” was actually a sealed room in which a chemical tablet known as “[[Zyklon B]]” was dropped through a hole in the ceiling. The cyanide-based vapors would kill the entire room within minutes; within thirty, the room was emptied by the ''sonderkomandos'', cleaned, and ready for another group of victims.

The "Operation Reinhardt" camps (Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek and Belzec, used a different execution method; the gas chambers were pumped full of carbon monoxide generated by gasoline engines from vehicles and captured Soviet tanks. At these camps all arrivals were gassed, as the camps were pure extermination facilities with no attached work camps.

Of the death camps, the one at Osweicim, Poland – Auschwitz – was perhaps the most notorious. Auschwitz was three camps: a prisoner-of-war camp (Auschwitz I), a slave-labour camp (Auschwitz III–Buna-Monowitz) and the extermination camp (Auschwitz II–Birkenau). The arrivals would disembark the trains at Auschwitz II, where the old, handicapped, infirm, sick, and pregnant women would face a German doctor (among them the notorious [[Joseph Mengele]]) in the ''selektion'', where a flick of a thumb could mean the difference between slave labor in the nearby factory run by I.G. Farben (which took advantage of the forced labor by investing some 700 million Reichsmarks in the project), or to their immediate deaths. Those selected for labor would be worked to death by a combination of hard labor and inadequate food and medical care; a second ''selektion'' of their numbers, if they had survived, would mean a trip to the gas chambers.

===Bystanders===
In recent years much controversy has arisen over when President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] learned about the Nazis programs, and what he did or did not do. Switzerland was neutral and accepted in some refugees, but it also made large profits by trading and banking with Germany. The Swiss were forced in the 1990s to make reparation payments.

===Collaborators===
In rounding up Jews the Nazis sometimes had the enthusiastic cooperation of pro-Nazi governments (as in France and Slovakia). A few countries, including Italy and Hungary, tried to stall the Nazis, but the Germans took power directly and seized the Jews. Only Bulgaria and Denmark were largely successful in protecting their Jews.

===Resisters===
Resistance took many forms, from individual acts to hundreds of examples of organized, armed resistance. The most famous episode was the month-long uprising of 60,000 remaining Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in April 1943. At the Sobibor death camp, an uprising in October 1943 allowed 600 prisoners to escape.

Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi death machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves. Further, the Nazis took great care to prevent their victims from knowing their true plans right up to the moment of their deaths; at Babi Yar many had believed they were being transported to a “family work camp” right up to the point of standing before their own mass grave. There was also the fear of reprisals against large numbers of Jews within the ghettos, which also prevented resistance. But word of the unbelievable atrocities of the death camps filtered into places like Warsaw, and as the trains were leaving packed with Jews many saw that resistance was preferable to the death that awaited them.

Nine months after the Warsaw deportations had commenced, and after confirmation that their destination was the Treblinka extermination camp, 24-year-old [[Mordecai Anielewicz]] and his Jewish Resistance began the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprising]] on April 19, 1943, which lasted just over a month.

[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]] was a Christian pastor and theologian who was opposed to the goings on in Germany. He was involved in the German Resistance and took part in a plan to assassinate Hitler. This led to his capture and eventual execution, under Hitler's order, at Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945.

Jews fought alongside partisans elsewhere in France, the Balkans, and Soviet Russia during the last three years of the war. Uprisings also occurred in two of the death camps, Treblinka and Sobibor; the latter was closed as a result and the site razed to hide the evidence.

In a unique case of resistance, the Jews of [[Denmark]] were almost entirely saved by the good will of their neighbors. The Danish government had arranged a system by which they maintained control of the government except for foreign affairs. This allowed the Jews of Denmark to live unmolested for several years. When the Nazis did move to deport the Jews in 1943 the Danish Government resigned in protest. The Danish people began a process of evacuating all of the Jews, en masse, to Sweden. The universities closed so students could assist the evacuation, congregations were urged to help, and the fishing fleets helped to evacuate the Jews by sea. In the end, only 500 Danish Jews were captured and placed in Theresienstadt where they remained until the end of the war thanks in part to the continued attentions of the Danish people.<ref>http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/languages/en/04/01/denmark2.php</ref>

===Rescuers===
Rescuers hid potential victims as best they could; the tragic story of [[Anne Frank]] is the most famous. The Pope helped protect some Italian Jews; it is still being debated whether he could have done much more. The most famous rescuer was Oskar Schindler; —“Schindler’s List” the movie is a tells the true story about of how he saved 1,100 Jews from the Nazis by setting up factories that produced defective munitions.<ref>[http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/schindlers-list.html For further information, see]</ref>

In territory occupied by the Germans, the situation was bleak for Jews. Their allies were few and resources were meager. Despite this, many put their lives on the line to provide aid and comfort, as well as putting them in hiding or through a network of underground units to get them to safety. In Poland, it was punishable by death to aid Jews, yet a “council for the aid of Jews” known as the Zegota rescued about 5,000 men, women, and children, providing hiding places and forged identity papers. A similar number was hidden by French Huguenots in the little town of Le Chamblon-sur-Lignon.

====Vatican====
Although criticized by many for his silence about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, Pope [[Pius XII]] hid several hundred inside the Vatican, away from Mussolini and German occupiers and quietly worked behind the scenes to do what they could. The Vatican estimates they were able to save upwards of 150,000 Jews during this horrible time. For those who say the Vatican should have done more to save Jews, it should be noted that they weren't even able to stop the killing of Polish Catholics, of whom more than a million lost their lives, so how could they stop the killing of Jews?

====Wallenburg====
Swedish diplomat [[Raoul Wallenburg]], in an attempt to save the last remaining Jews in Hungary, arrived in Budapest on July 9, 1944, and working with neutral diplomats and the Vatican, secured the release of several thousand; his efforts at the rescue of Jews would total well over 100,000 by war's end, including [[Tom Lantos]], a survivor who became a powerful member of the U.S. Congress.

====Schindler====
A Nazi businessman who took advantage of the slave labor conditions to make a personal profit, [[Oskar Schindler]], would use that profit to bribe camp guards and Nazi officials at the Plazow camp to ensure that the workers he had grown to love and admire would survive the end of the war; among the individuals he played cat and mouse with for their lives was the camp's commandant, Amon Goeth, a sadistic SS officer who shot Jews for target practice from his villa and tortured a captured escapee by shooting the prisoners around him. These men and women, who hid Jews out of a sense of common humanity, would not be forgotten: the state of Israel would recognize them with honorary citizenship several years later.

===Liberators===
The Allies liberated the concentration camps in 1945 — but the question remains as to whether they could have bombed the camps or otherwise stopped the Final Solution.

===Survivors===
The survivors of the Final Solution were very quiet about their experiences until about 1961, when Adolf Eichmann was captured in South America by Israel, tried in Jerusalem, and executed. Since then the Holocaust has become recognized as the most horrible episode of the 20th century, and it has been analyzed in numerous with many books, courses, museums, and movies. The most important museums are Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

===Non-Jewish victims===
Jews were not the only victims of Nazi persecution.<ref>It is estimated that around 6 million Jews were killed during the Final Solution, along with as many as another 6 million non-Jews. [http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/heinrich-himmler.shtml]</ref>
Members of unions, members of the Social Democratic Party, and political dissidents were also sent to the camps; indeed they were among the first ones incarcerated immediately following Hitler's appointment as chancellor. Some 20,000 [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] also were rounded up and sent to the camps, primarily because of refusal to register for the draft, swear allegiance to the state, or give the “Heil Hitler” greeting. [[Homosexual]]s were arrested if they were of the Femmes faction; they were forced to wear a pink triangle on their prison garments; and sent to the camps. [[Gypsies]] as well were rounded up and imprisoned, and like the Jews, were deliberately marked for killing.

The mentally retarded, the disabled, and the insane were selected for the "T-4" Program, which was created in 1939. Dubbed “useless eaters” by SS general Ernst Kaltenbrunner, these people were murdered as part of a “euthanasia” campaign, usually by placing them in a special room where a vehicle's engine provided the carbon monoxide gas that flowed in through a hose in a wall.

Following the outbreak of World War II in [[Poland]], the Nazis killed Polish intelligentsia in territories under their control, politicians, priests, and anyone else deemed part of a Polish leadership; the remainder were deemed slaves to serve their new masters; many were forced to perform hard labor, while many of the children who happened to look Aryan were kidnapped and raised as Germans in German households.

As Hitler was pro-[[animal rights]] and [[environmentalism]], [[hunter]]s, fishermen, lumberjacks, [[farmer]]s, and builders were also killed by Nazis.

[[Image:Goeth.jpg|right|150px|right|thumb|Amon Goeth, commandant of the Plazow concentration camp near Kraków, Poland. A sadistic man, his recreation was to target and kill individual Jews in the camp with a hunting rifle from the balcony of his villa.]]

==Deaths==
The number of Jews put to death were staggering. Beginning in the summer of 1942 a bare minimum of 960,000 were believed killed at Auschwitz during its three years in operation. At Treblinka, between 750,000-900,000 Jews were killed within 17 months, considering the staff and guards there numbered 120. 600,000 Jews died at Belzac within 10 months by a staff numbering 104. In the eighteen months of its operation, Sobibor killed 250,000.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="450" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: yellow no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish Death Statistics during the Holocaust
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Country
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Prior Jewish Population
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number Killed
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Percentage of Total
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number of Survivors
|-
|'''Poland'''
|3,300,000
|'''3,000,000'''
|91%
|300,000
|-
|'''Germany'''
|566,000
|'''200,000'''
|36%
|366,000
|-
|'''USSR'''
|3,020,000
|'''1,100,000'''
|36%
|1,920,000
|-
|'''Hungary'''
|800,000
|'''596,000'''
|74%
|204,000
|-
|'''Lithuania'''
|168,000
|'''143,000'''
|85%
|25,000
|-
|'''Estonia'''
|4,500
|'''2,000'''
|44%
|2,500
|-
|'''Latvia'''
|95,000
|'''80,000'''
|84%
|15,000
|-
|'''France'''
|350,000
|'''77,320'''
|22%
|272,680
|-
|'''Austria'''
|185,000
|'''65,000'''
|35%
|120,000
|-
|'''Netherlands'''
|140,000
|'''100,000'''
|71%
|40,000
|-
|'''Belgium'''
|65,700
|'''28,900'''
|45%
|36,800
|-
|'''Romania'''
|342,000
|'''287,000'''
|84%
|55,000
|-
|'''Bohemia Moravia'''
|118,310
|'''71,150'''
|60%
|47,160
|-
|'''Greece'''
|77,380
|'''67,000'''
|87%
|10,380
|-
|'''Czechoslovakia'''
|88,950
|'''71,000'''
|80%
|17,950
|-
|'''Yugoslavia'''
|78,000
|'''63,300'''
|81%
|14,700
|-
|'''Italy'''
|44,500
|'''7,680'''
|17%
|36,820
|-
|'''Bulgaria'''
|50,000
|'''0'''
|0%
|50,000
|-
|'''Denmark'''
|7,800
|'''60'''
|.8%
|7,740
|-
|'''Finland'''
|2,000
|'''7'''
|.03%
|1,993
|-
|'''Norway'''
|1,700
|'''762'''
|45%
|938
|-
|'''TOTAL'''
|'''9,508,340'''
|'''5,962,129'''
|'''63%'''
|'''3,546,211'''
|
|}

==Survivors==
More than nine million people were discovered by the [[Allies]] to have been displaced throughout the European Theater of the war; of these, six million were returned to their native lands. One million refused, citing either a fear of communist persecution or a fear of being discovered to have collaborated with the enemy. The remainder, more than three and a half million Jews, had nothing. For these survivors, life after the war meant searching for loved ones, as well as recovering from the severe effects of malnutrition and disease at the hands of the Nazis.

As to the future of finding homes for the surviving Jews, that was solved in part by both covert and well-publicized efforts to pressure [[Great Britain]] into relinquishing control of [[Palestine]] for the purpose of a Jewish homeland, as well as the relaxing of American immigration laws in 1948 which allowed a large influx of Jewish refugees. So shocking was the Holocaust to the Jewish mindset that it caused a determination of survivors to speed the creation of the State of [[Israel]] in May, 1948, vowing that a repeat of the Holocaust, as well as previous pogroms against the Jews in the past, would not happen again. Since 1948, Israel has fought in four major wars against their neighbors bent on eradicating it, and each time Israel has emerged victorious.

The Allies were just as shocked over the conditions which prevailed at the Nazi death camps, and set up military tribunals as a result. The most famous was the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal|Nürnberg Trials]], taking place 1945-1946 near the site of the Nazi mass rallies. For the first time in history, an international tribunal would try the 22 major living Nazis for crimes against humanity; all but one would be found guilty, and more than half would suffer death by hanging.

Unfortunately, some survivors of the horrific event have exploited this tragedy to push more horrific aspects. An infamous example is Simone Veil, née Simone Jacob, an ethnic non-practicing Jew who was along two of her three eldest siblings among the few survivors in her family of the holocaust due to being arrested despite getting fake papers hiding her family's Jewish identity, who later was responsible for the passage of "loi Veil", France's equivalent of Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion, with there being sufficient evidence to suggest that Veil used her status as a holocaust victim to push its legalization.<ref>https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/france-mourns-the-loss-of-a-politician-who-wrote-countrys-abortion-law</ref>

==Punishment==
Hitler and Goebbels committed suicide as the Russians were capturing Berlin. Himmler was captured in late May 1945 and committed suicide before he could be brought to trial for his war crimes. The main war criminals were tried at the International War Crimes Tribunals at Nuremberg in 1945–1947, and at smaller trials throughout Europe. The Holocaust was mentioned at the trials, but the major allegation against defendants was the systematic planning of an unjust war.<ref>The Far East War Crimes Trials were held from 1946 to 1948, and resulted in the conviction of 25 Japanese generals and high officials accused of crimes against peace. Over 2,000 local and regional trials convicted 4,000 Japanese officers accused of mistreating prisoners and civilians.</ref> Many Nazis fled justice, reaching Argentina or other distant locations. Adolf Eichmann, a chief architect of the Holocaust, was captured while hiding in Argentina under an assumed name, brought to Israel, and put on trial in 1961. He was found guilty, and suffered the first and only death penalty carried out in Israel's history. Other Nazis would eventually be brought to trial: [[Klaus Barbie]], the “Butcher of Lyon”, was tried in France in 1987, as well as [[Maurice Papon]] a decade later for collaborating with the Nazis. These trials brought to new generations an awareness of the Holocaust.

==Etymology==
The word '''Holocaust''' comes from the Greek word ''holokaustos'' (''holos'': complete, and ''kaustos'': a sacrificial or burnt offering to a god); the [[Hebrew]] words ''Sho'ah'' (Catastrophe) and ''Hurban'' (destruction)<ref>https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269548/Holocaust</ref> were also used, and survivors have used both to refer to what seemed to be the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, specifically in the crematoria of the [[concentration camps|extermination camps]] built for that purpose. Many victims have taken offense to the term '''Holocaust''' because of the meaning of the word. The term ''Sho'ah'' has become the preferred term in some parts of the world<ref>http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp</ref>

==Books and film==
* ''[[Schindler's List]]''

==See also==
[[Image:Lovis Corinth Römische Campagna.jpg|thumb|Römische Campagna by Lovis Corinth; returned to the heirs of a Jew in 2007.]]
* [[Holocaust denial]]
*[[Holocaust Memorial Day]]
*[[Kindertransport]]
* [[Bergen-Belsen]], one of the main killing camps
* [[SS]], in charge of the killing
* [[Sára Salkaházi]]
* [[Concentration camp]]s and [[Death camp]]s
* [[Tibet]]
* [[Big government]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[socialist]] [[Nanny state]], leads to [[communist]] [[Police state]] - Don't think [[Communism]] is incompatible with [[Islam]].
* [[Gun control]] - key element to create a police state
* [[Terrorism]]
*[[Come and See (film, 1985)]]

==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy02267X8A&feature=related Original U.S. Army record of the discovery of camps, recorded on orders of General Dwight D. Eisenhower]
*[http://www.h-net.org/~holoweb/ H-HOLOCAUST], daily discussion group, edited by scholars; numerous book reviews and reports on current scholarship
*[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ Holocaust Encyclopedia]
*[http://www.yadvashem.org/ Yad VaShem, the World Center for Holocaust Research], [[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]
*[http://www.ushmm.org/ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm ''Babi Yar'', poem by Yevgeni Yevtushenko]
*[http://www.hmh.org/ Houston Holocaust Museum]
*[http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/ Florida Holocaust Museum]
*[http://www.va-holocaust.com/ Virginia Holocaust Museum]
*[http://holocausteducationcenter.org/ Holocaust Awareness Museum & Educational Center of Philadelphia; America's First Holocaust Museum]
*[http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Nuremberg/Nuremberg.html#search Searchable list of 2300 victims from Nuremberg]
*[http://www.holocaustcentre.net/ Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Newark, England]
*[http://www.mhmc.ca/ Montreal Holocaust Memorial Center Museum]
*[http://www.holocaust-mahnmal.de/en German Government's Memorial To Jews Murdered During Holocaust]
*[http://www.amcha.org/ AMCHA: Israeli Association of Holocaust Survivors]
*[http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/ Hitler's first writing about Jewry.] On 16 September 1919.
{{Clear}}

====Notes====
<references/>

==Bibliography==
===Surveys and victims===
* Bloxham, Donald and Kushner, Tony. ''The Holocaust: Critical Historical Approaches.'' (2005). 238 pp.
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review]
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
** '' Hitler's War Against the Jews: A Young Reader's Version of the War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, by Lucy S. Dawidowicz'' (1978) [https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-War-Against-Jews-Dawidowicz/dp/0874412226/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979155&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Edelheit, Abraham et al. ''History Of The Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary'' (1995) 544pp, a standard reference work [http://www.questia.com/read/9134049?title=History%20of%20the%20Holocaust%3a%20A%20Handbook%20and%20Dictionary online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: 1933-1945'' (2009) abridged version of standard 2 volume history:
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [https://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Persecution:1933-1939'' (1998)
* Friedman, Saul S. ''A History of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 494 pp.
* Gilbert, Martin. ''Never Again: The History of the Holocaust'' (2000) [https://www.amazon.com/Never-Again-Holocaust-Martin-Gilbert/dp/0789304090/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War'' (1987) [https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-History-Europe-During-Second/dp/0805003487/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Routledge Atlas of the Holocaust'' (2002)[https://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Atlas-Holocaust-Historical-Atlases/dp/0415281466/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Gutman, Israel. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust'' (4 vol 1990), a standard reference work
* Lacqueur, Walter, ed. ''The Holocaust Encyclopedia'' (2001).
* Landau, Ronnie. ''The Nazi Holocaust'' (2002)
* Marrus, Michael A. ''The Holocaust in History'' (1989)
* Niewyk, Donald, and Francis Nicosia. ''The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust.'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99854126&oplinknum=4 online edition]; [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=289191002135231 online review]
* Rosen, Philip. ''Dictionary of the Holocaust: Biography, Geography and Terminology.'' (1997)
* Rothkirchen, Livia. ''The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust.'' (2006). 447 pp.
* Spector, Shmuel ed., ''The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life: Before and During the Holocaust'' (2001).
* Yahil, Leni. ''The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry'', (1990).

===Perpetrators===
* Browning, Christopher. ''Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers'' (2000)
* Burleigh, Michael. ''The Third Reich: A New History.'' 2000. 864 pp., stresses central role of antisemitism.
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
* Friedlander, Henry. ''The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution.'' (1995) 445 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2249957902770 online review];[http://www.questia.com/read/9253469?title=The%20Origins%20of%20Nazi%20Genocide%3a%20From%20Euthanasia%20to%20the%20Final%20Solution online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939'' (1998)), the standard scholarly history
* Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [https://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gaunt, David; Levine, Paul A.; and Palosuo, Laura, eds. ''Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.'' (2004). 519 pp.
* Goldhagen, Daniel Joseph. ''Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust'' (1997).
* Graml, Hermann. ''Antisemitism in the Third Reich'' (1992).
* Gutman, Israel, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,'' 4 vol (1989)
* Johnson, Eric A. ''Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans'' (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Terror-Gestapo-Ordinary-Germans/dp/0465049087/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
* Lewy, Guenter. ''The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies'' (2001). [https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Persecution-Gypsies-Guenter-Lewy/dp/0195142403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979549&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Richard, ed. ''Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution'' (2005)
* Lower, Wendy. ''Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine.'' (2005). 307 pp.
* Wachsmann, Nikolaus. "Looking into the Abyss: Historians and the Nazi Concentration Camps," ''European History Quarterly,'' 4 2006; vol. 36: pp. 247 - 278. fulltext in Sage; historiography
* Wistrich, Robert S. ''Hitler and the Holocaust.'' (2001). 295 pp.

===Memory===
* Bartov, Omer. ''Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide and Modern Identity.'' (2000). 310 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-507723-0. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23289980364228 online review]; [https://www.amazon.com/Mirrors-Destruction-Genocide-Modern-Identity/dp/0195151844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979627&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bloxham, Donald. ''Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory.'' (2001) 292pp ISBN 978-0-19-820872-3. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=122091071198412 online review]
* Carrier, Peter. ''Holocaust Monuments and National Memory Cultures in France and Germany since 1989: The Origins and Political Function of the Véd'Hiv' in Paris and the Holocaust Monument in Berlin.'' (2005) 267 pp.
* Douglas, Lawrence. ''The Memory of Judgment: The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust'' (2000) [https://books.google.com/books?id=hiU2C0maeAMC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Memory+intitle:of+intitle:Judgment+inauthor:douglas&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=MiETAxY1KKnru9emnC0x3IXWJIE excerpt and text search]
* Greenspan, Henry. ''On Listening to Holocaust Survivors: Recounting and Life History.'' (1998) 220 pp. ISBN 978-0-275-95718-6. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=3035937424750 online review]
* Haggith, Tony and Newman, Joanna, ed. ''Holocaust and the Moving Image: Representations in Film and Television.'' 2005. 317 pp.
* Mikhman, Dan. ''Holocaust Historiography: A Jewish Perspective: Conceptualizations, Terminology, Approaches, and Fundamental Issues'' (2003)
* Roseman, Mark. ''A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany'' (2001). [https://www.amazon.com/Past-Hiding-Memory-Survival-Germany/dp/031242065X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979685&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rosen, Philip. and Nina Apfelbaum. ''Bearing Witness: A Resource Guide to Literature, Poetry, Art, Music, and Videos by Holocaust Victims and Survivors'' (2001) [https://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Witness-Literature-Holocaust-Survivors/dp/0313310769/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195980447&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Stone, Dan, ed. ''The Historiography of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 573 pp
* Waxman, Zoe Vania. ''Writing the Holocaust: Identity, Testimony, Representation'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Holocaust-Representation-Historical-Monographs/dp/0199206384/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981167&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Wiesel, Elie, and Robert Franciosi. ''Elie Wiesel: Conversations'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Elie-Wiesel-Conversations-Literary/dp/1578065038/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979990&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Weisel, Elie. ''Night'' (1999).

===Reactions and memory in U.S.===
* Abzug, Robert H. ed. ''America Views the Holocaust, 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History'' (1999) [https://www.amazon.com/America-Views-Holocaust-1933-1945-Documentary/dp/0312218192/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981035&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Lipstadt, Deborah E. ''Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945'' (1993). [https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979711&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Newton, Verne W., ed. ''FDR and the Holocaust'' (1996). [https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Franklin-Roosevelt-Institute-Diplomatic/dp/0312122268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979739&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Novick, Peter. ''The Holocaust in American Life'' (1999). [https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-American-Life-Peter-Novick/dp/0618082328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979766&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wyman, David. ''The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945.'' (1984). [https://www.amazon.com/Abandonment-Jews-America-Holocaust-1941-1945/dp/159558174X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979795&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

===Primary sources===
* Aroneanu, Eugene and Thomas Whissen, eds. ''Inside the Concentration Camps: Eyewitness Accounts of Life in Hitler's Death Camps'' (1996) 176 pp, [http://www.questia.com/read/26185130?title=Inside%20the%20Concentration%20Camps%3a%20Eyewitness%20Accounts%20of%20Life%20in%20Hitler's%20Death%20Camps online edition]
* Greene, Joshua M, and Shiva Kumar, eds. ''Witness: Voices from the Holocaust'' (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/WITNESS-Holocaust-Joshua-M-Greene/dp/0684865262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979830&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Klemperer, Victor. ''I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1942–1945'' (2001). [https://www.amazon.com/Will-Bear-Witness-1942-1945-Diary/dp/0375756973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979856&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]
* Kremer, S. Lillian, ed. ''Holocaust Literature: An Encyclopedia of Writers and Their Work'' (2002).
* Siedlecki, Janusz Nel, et als. ''We Were in Auschwitz'' (2000).
* Szpilman, Wladyslaw. ''The Pianist'' (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Pianist-Read-Great-Movie/dp/0752864297/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979914&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]

==International Justice==
* Pritchard, R. John, “War Crimes, International Criminal Law, and the Postwar Trials in Europe and Asia.,” in Loyd E. Lee ed., ''World War II in Asia and the Pacific and the War’s Aftermath, with General Themes,'' edited by Loyd E. Lee (1987).

===Video===
* “Schindler’s List” (DVD and VHS) (1993).
* [http://college.usc.edu/vhi/ USC Shoah Foundation], largest video archive of testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses,

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Genocide]]
[[Category:Holocaust| ]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Man-Made Disasters]]
[[Category:Threats]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Gun Control]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Leo Frank

2021-08-17T17:34:12Z

Burke39: Added source

'''Leo M. Frank''' (1884–1915) was a young Jewish man who was lynched in 1915 in Marietta, Georgia by a mob of white supremacists. After being falsely accused and convicted of the murder and molestation of a young girl named Mary Phagan in 1913, Frank's legal team worked to have his sentence commuted from death to life in prison. The judge eventually decided to commute his sentence, and shortly afterward, Frank was stolen from his prison cell, driven to Marietta, and hanged by the neck from a tree until he was dead. Leo's case underscores the dangers of fake news, as the journalist Thomas Dixon whipped up anti-Semitic hysteria during his trial and later. Frank was framed by his janitor, Jim Conley, who fringe black and white supremacists continue to defend to this day.

==External links==
*[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/leo-frank Leo Frank], Jewish Virtual Library
*[https://www.americanheritage.com/fate-leo-frank The Fate Of Leo Frank], American Heritage
* [https://www.leofrank.com/]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Frank, Leo}}
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:Victims]]

Talk:Holocaust denial

2021-08-17T17:23:02Z

Burke39: /* Holocaust is a hoax */ new section

==Wikipedia==

While I disagree on the way Wikipedia words this, I think it's slightly misleading to call their reporting of the fact that people do, in fact, deny the Holocaust, an endorsement. A few people do not believe in the Holocaust, and this is a fact, regardless of the validity of this belief. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I've raised this issue in several forums with Wikipedia; and given the way the term "Holocaust denier" is so lightly thrown around in Wikipdia (it is Chip Berlet calling Danial Brandt a Holocaust denier, and Wikipedia's refusal to take it down, that is the root cause of all the problems WP has had with Brandt), it's not surprising this pejoritive has boomeranged home once again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so the stuff about Wikipedia's abuse of the term gives undue weight right now; I do intend to bring it back, however, as the article expands. And there are other issues regarding Wikipedia & Holocaust denial that also need sun light. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

How is holocaust denial different from denying that slavery ever existed in the United States, because it doesn't exist now?

I find this article offensive. I am a holocaust denier myself. [[User:Hamtandrus|Hamtandrus]] 18:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Then please crawl back under your rock.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*People deny Jesus Christ as the true son of God. That does not alter the fact he is. Denial of the Holocaust is another bit of selective fiction a small number of people seem to embrace. They are prayed for. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==revisionists.com==
* http://www.revisionists.com/ lists at least three historians, AJP Taylor, John Toland, and Anthony Kubek to Holocaust denial. This is a highly questionable defamatory smear. This link has been removed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== David Irving ==
The British right-wing historian David Irving was gaoled for three years in Austria in 2006 for holocaust denial. Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

A good heneral link on denial:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html

== Holocaust Denial in Japan ==

Unfortunately, Holocaust denial in Japan is tied to the Conservatives of that country. The Shukanshi and in particular the Shukan Bunshun is regarded as conservative, not liberal. It is in keeping with the overall Japanese conservative basic denial of responsibility and revisionist attitude towards Japanese actions during WWII. I suppose it is hard to fully accept that they were such close allies of the Nazis and participated,however indirectly,in one of the greatest tragedies in modern history. [[User:Tordenvaer:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer:Tordenvaer]] 14:27, 16 January 2008 (EDT)

==Anti-HD bias==
Unfortunately for all of us conservatives, we have to face the facts and relaize that Holocaust deniers are almost all conservative. We need to appeal to all conservatives here, even crazy ones. [[User:Ohwhatarelief|Ohwhatarelief]] 17:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:HDers play loose and fast with the truth, which is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:24, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::I think we should end this fight between cons in which soem conservatives call others "liberals". I've been on racist sites that claim Mike Huckabee is not a conservative but simply a "nutcase religious zealot". You people are as bad as they are. [[User:Ohwhatarelief|Ohwhatarelief]] 17:26, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::"you people"?[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::WTF? "You people"=Conservapedians. If someone is pro-life, anti-gay, anti-gun control, anti-drugs, etc., but also deny the Holocaust, are they liberal or conservative? [[User:Ohwhatarelief|Ohwhatarelief]] 17:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::If someone denies the holocaust, they're not liberal or conservative. They're just wrong. Flat-out. Please do not use phrases like "WTF" here.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::::::So denying the Holocaust means you lose any political affiliation? Well, you aren't consevrative or liberal either, you're just retarded. [[User:Ohwhatarelief|Ohwhatarelief]] 17:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::::I'm not sure what your point is. Holocaust denial is evil, and not conservative. It's its own thing. Fascism is not conservatism, it's atheism run amok. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::He's gone anyways; at least for a month...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==Which do you prefer?==
Liberals or Holocaust deniers? Take your pick. [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:False dichotomy[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:37, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::This is '''''really''''' reminding me of the old Fred Phelps thing. [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:38, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::Fred Phelps does not behave like a true Christian. He acts out of hate instead of love. We are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner...he hates both.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:40, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::I don't like Fred Phelps, but he is anything but a liberal. I don't want to argue that though. Holocaust denial doesn't make one liberal-misguided, but not liberal, and jailing people for it is just wrong. [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:41, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I have to be honest, this whole talking about holocaust denial makes me uncomfortable. I don't think we need to say which ideology HD is typical of; we can just say that, regardless, it's evil. Same with Phelps. Period.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:42, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::::::Fine, as long as you admit putting people in prison for it si evil too. [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:43, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::The United States rarely jails people for speech acts. Read up on the [[First Amendment]].-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::I agree that free speech allows these evil people...but that doesn't free them from Ultimate Judgment. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 17:46, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Germany jails people like Ernst Zundel for Holocaust denial. Now enough witht he edit coflicts! [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==Holocaust deneirs as "evil people"==
You claim that you consider liberals to be "misguided" while liberals consider conservatives "evil". You must hate Holcoaust dneiers most of all since you callo them "evil". [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:50, 27 January 2008 (EST)
:Judgment is reserved for God, but those who would deny and mock the deaths of six million humans do not support the [[culture of life]] upon which [[Christianity]] is based; I do think they are some of the worst transgressors. Yes.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:56, 27 January 2008 (EST)
::They aren't laughing at the deaths of six million people, they are denying they ever happened. So no, you're wrong. Besides, it was eleven million people. [[User:Paleocon4freedom|Paleocon4freedom]] 17:57, 27 January 2008 (EST)

==Discussion==
I tried to remove the above discussion because of its disgusting reference to Holocaust Deniers as evil people. What is your basis for this-dare I say it-EVIL claim? [[User:Ronpaulican|Ronpaulican]] 12:11, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:This is a discussion page. As a new editor here I suggest you confine yourself to positive contributions rather than deleting large chunks from talk pages. Among the more than 22,000 articles here I am sure you can find something to contribute without trying to inject your own brand of racism. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== Category ==

Add to [[:Category:Conspiracy Theory]].- [[User:Gilliam|Gilliam]] 13:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:Along with creationism, you mean? [[User:Lalsas|Lalsas]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Medias==
Under "Holocaust Denial in Japan", there's reference to "liberal news medias in Japan" Media is the plural of medium, and therefore medias is a pluralization of a pluralization, and thus incorrect. Cheers. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:00, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Holocaust is a hoax ==

The Holocaust is a hoax, and there is a mountain of evidence that proves it. Jews were talking about 6 million Jews being in danger of extermination long before the Holocaust happened. Every alleged gas chamber that was investigated turned out not to be a gas chamber. Paul Bustion 13:23, August 17, 2021 (EDT)

User talk:Burke39

2015-08-26T16:51:35Z

Burke39: /* Please come back */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:56, 10 November 2011 (EST)}}

==Age of consent/Pedophilia==

Burke, you moved a large section from one article to another article, then said it didn't belong in the second article either. Are you going to put it somewhere else?

== [[Rudolf Freiherr von Sebottendorff]] ==

Burke, how could the founder of a "Worker's party" be regarded as right-wing? And what offices did this "politician" hold? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:34, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
::::I took out the reference to the right-wing, and replaced "politician" with "political activist". Is that better?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:37, 12 March 2015 (EDT)

== Restriction ==
You're getting another chance, but you're not allowed to edit articles or content on human sexuality. Those are Conservapedia's administration's orders. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:15, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Ok, I understand. Is that a permanent restriction or a temporary one? I mean if I agree to change what the problems were can I edit them?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:17, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

It's permanent as for now. If you show good behavior as a regular contributor, you may have success in appealing that decision. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:34, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Its just that I'm not sure that my contributions in that topic were any worse than in other areas. Why is that specific area being singled out? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:44, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:I think it's because you sort of have to be an expert to discuss these matters conservatively, and you have been shown in general to have made a lot of mistakes in presenting facts enyclopedically. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:54, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::By "discuss these matters conservatively" do you mean from a conservative political viewpoint, or do you mean with caution in order to avoid making mistakes? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:56, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:Conservative in style and substance. They can both involve each other. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:02, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:::I remember reading on your talk page somebody stating that "he maxed out his creepy/bizarre/liberal sex topic quota". So I thought maybe it was because of some kind of bias that they felt my editing contained. I'm actually a conservative politically, and although I don't think conversion therapy works in most cases, I don't agree with the homosexual "rights" movement and I'm against pedophilia. The only reason I took out the Kinsey comment about the adult-child thing was that it was sourced to a dead link, I didn't necessarily disagree with it. I'm against the ideas of people like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey who wanted to destroy morality. Also, in the ephebophilia article when I put the mental health practitioners did not consider it a mental problem, I wasn't saying that acting on attractions like that would be a good idea, I was just saying that the sources don't consider it a perversion the way pedophilia is considered a perversion because people in adolescence have adult bodies, that is what the reliable sources say for the most part in psychiatry. I understand I have to abide by the restriction even though I do not agree with it though.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Wait, another thing. Does the topic ban on sexuality only applies to articles specifically about sexuality, or does it also apply to sex when it comes up in other articles. For example, [[Nelson Rockefeller]] died during or shortly after sexual intercourse with a woman who worked for him, and he lost his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 because he divorced his wife to marry another woman he had been committing adultery with, and he also had sex with a lot of other women he was not married to, so in an article about him the topic of sex would come up. And in a lot of articles about other famous people like [[Bill Clinton]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Roman Polanski]], accusations (whether true or false) of sexual misconduct come up. Am I banned from editing parts of articles about people that relate to their sexual lives or to sexual accusations against them, or just from articles specifically about sexuality?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:36, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
::::If I were you, I'd give the whole topic a rest. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I'm just asking if the ban extends to those areas. That's my final question on it. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::It would make it look like you were trying to dodge the ban, so yes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:18, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Is there anything wrong with my recent edits to other topics ==
I put some edits in the Mormonism article because it seemed like the article was saying Mormonism is Christian, and its not. I'm not a particularly religious person so I don't have a dog in that fight, but Mormonism is completely different from Christianity. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:I checked those edits and found nothing offensive. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:21, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

== Your block ==

The cat picture in the Russia article was added by user:Conservative (generally known as "Cons") at 10:03, 2 Nov. 2011.

I do not know what to make of the statement that your "topic ban" on sex articles was issued by that person. In fact, I can see no evidence that anyone ever issued any kind of "topic ban" against you. Other than a reference to it having been done, by the administration, in a note by VargasMilan at 21:15, 11 May 2015. Cons is an administrator, and he may have issued that topic ban, but I can find no evidence of it. Nor do I know what the reference to the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" was about. The only references to that phrase that I can find are on your talk page, by you, at 22:06, 11 May 2015, and on VM's talk page, by you, at 00:53, 12 May 2015.

But I would recommend that, when you come back, you stay away from articles about anything related to sex. This is a subject area in which admins and sysops are particularly sensitive, rightly or wrongly, to the possibility of vandalism or parody. Even though you disagree completely, and think you have been treated unfairly, stay away.

About the cat picture: I fully agree that the cat picture isn't right for a section on Russian geography. Cons puts in lots of fanciful pictures, including cats, but they are almost always in his fanciful articles, where people expect that. It doesn't belong in the Russian geography section. I think a much better picture would be a vast plain with the Ural Mountains rising in the background. As in the ''Doctor Zhivago'' movie. I'd scrounge up a suitable picture myself, but I don't have upload rights. I see that Cons recently changed it to a picture of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which is fine, but not in the geography section. And the same picture is in the next section. By the way, I think edits relating to Russia and the USSR are a fine topic for you, and you seem to be knowledgeable about it.

As far as "inserting false information" or "trolling", I've seen no evidence of it, though I haven't looked through your extensive edits (244) over the last few months. Surviving at Conservapedia often involves staying away from people, and staying away from topics that set off their "troll detectors", whether you agree with them or not.

If you have anything you wish to say, or questions you wish to ask, contact me, as per [[User:SamHB|the top of my user page]]. I'll see what I can do.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:52, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

:Postscript --- @Cons: What happened to your Murmansk picture? Copyright problem? Please find another one. Preferably the Urals, or the Kamchatka volcano or whatever it is. Please upload something; I'm counting on you.

:Also, it would be nice if you could rescind Burke39's block. You have the authority to do it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:38, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

== Please come back ==

Burke39:

You should feel free to edit articles on any topic, such as the ones you suggested (anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry), but I'd recommend staying away from sexuality topics. I don't really understand Conservapedia's stance on sexuality, and I never edit on such topics. Don't fret over just why people wanted you to stay away; I never figured out what their gripe was either. Just stay away.

Please don't get too stressed out over just what Cons and VM think of you. Proceed normally. Don't worry about "He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege." Just stay away from sexuality, the way I stay away from creationism.

Now there is no guarantee that you won't be arbitrarily blocked for reasons that seem frivolous. (In fact there's no guarantee of anything in this life, is there?) These things happen. I was [[User_talk:SamHB/Archive_1|blocked by Ed Poor]] 7 years ago, with no explanation (he didn't put any explanation on my user page.) Several attempts, over the next few years, to get him to explain what this "probation" meant, were unsuccessful. Eventually I just forgot about it, and so did he. We [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ada_Lovelace&action=history collaborated amicably] after that.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I hesitate to because I'm afraid of what I would do if someone irritated me hear. I'm already convicted of crimes I committed against my teachers after they kicked me out of school and their attorney explained in a letter their reasons. I was very insulted by the letter and committed crimes as a result. I'm worried about the possibility of people insulting me here. Paul Bustion 12:51, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

User talk:Burke39

2015-07-22T04:23:58Z

Burke39: /* Your recent message to VargasMilan */

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-07-19T19:10:12Z

Burke39:

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:52, 1 January 2010 (EST)}}

== re: Atheism article ==

If you want to replace the bare link footnotes of the [[Atheism]] article with more descriptive non-bare links, that would be most welcome. I am involved in some major projects right now and I am pressed for time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll do some more then. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:01, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
::Thanks. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
:::Thank you again for all your work on the atheism article. It's appearance looks noticeably better plus it is more informative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:43, 15 January 2015 (EST)
::You're welcome. I also like the article and appreciate all the research you've done for it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:47, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks. I don't think I would do the research again. Atheism is a rather stale topic and its prospects in terms of adherents [[Global atheism|looks poor]] in the 21st century. I agree with [[John Updike]] who said, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position." If I knew the [[New Atheism]] was just a fad, I wouldn't have bothered. In hindsight, it has a lot of indicators that it was merely a fad.

:::My research had a ''The Bridge on the River Kwai''/Gestalt principle like element to it. Once I started the task, I wanted to finish it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 15 January 2015 (EST)

::::You gathered in one place a lot of supporting evidence that otherwise would have been scattered all over the internet and of limited use. I think you deserve a kudos for that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::::I did put a fly in the evangelical/militant atheist soup by putting this evidence together in one place. And a good [[Christian apologetics]] team has both an offense/defense (Saying why other worldviews are wrong and why Christianity is correct). So some good came out of it. But there is the issue of the [[opportunity cost]]. I could have used the time to advance other causes (Christian evangelism, anti-slavery efforts, anti-poverty efforts, etc. etc.). If you look [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE]and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=GB&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=AU&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and at the [[global atheism]] article, it does seem like atheism is losing steam in the world, the US, the UK and Australia in recent years.

:::::Part of this downward trend is due to Christian efforts and a lot of it is due to atheists shooting themselves in the foot through their ill behavior and infighting (see: [[Atheist movement]] and [[Elevatorgate]]). In addition, the more we know about the physical world and about the nature of man, the less plausible atheism is. In addition, the atheist community has largely [[Atheism and politics|allied itself with the left end of the political spectrum]] and in recent years, the left has not fared very well. And high sovereign debt around the world in developed countries, makes the left's prospects dimmer. Austerity measures are often not something a country chooses. It is something that is forced upon them. And austerity measures and leftism are not a good match. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I just noticed something. If you look at those graphs, you will see that upward part of the graphs correlate with the rise of [[New Atheism]] and the political left (Obama, etc. etc.), but the descent of the graphs is correlated with the fall of the [[New Atheism]] and the political left losing favor. I didn't notice the political aspect until just now. Christendom has a higher degree of diversity in terms of politics due to its high geographic diversity. Like I am politically to the right within the multiple Christian editors of User: Conservate-ism and politically to the right of former admin Philip Rayment for example. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 January 2015 (EST)

== Great job and small request ==

You are doing a superb job as far as the atheism footnotes.

I have a small request as far as the atheism article footnotes. For various reasons, I try to keep all the links on the page highly relevant. Like all the links going to the specific source pages. So if you could avoid the links going to the home pages of the news websites (or other websites), I would appreciate it.

The article is going to look fantastic when the footnoting is finished and it will be more helpful to readers as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll compress them if you like. Thanks for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:40, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
::OK, I just compressed one. The footnote to the Marxism website. You can see what I did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

== re: two other articles ==

After you finish footnoting the atheism article, consider footnoting the [[evolution]] and [[homosexuality]] articles because those articles are popular articles too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:05, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

== footnotes - atheism article ==

The only reason I changed one of the footnotes in the article is because I found a better source. Your footnoting is excellent and makes the article more user friendly which is important. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you, I was just about to ask you about that change. And thank you for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:33, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
::The [[Evolution]] article is probably the most popular article on this website. And the topic is related to atheism too. Would you like to do the footnoting for the evolution article too? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
:::That one is very long. I would prefer to work on some of the smaller "Liberal characteristics and traits" articles first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:01, 29 July 2014 (EDT)
::::OK. There is an article which has under 50 footnotes and over 1,000,000 page views. The [[liberal]] article. This would be an excellent candidate to do better footnoting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

== spammer on the loose ==

See Recent changes at 23:52. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:16, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::I'm [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AVargasMilan&year=&month=-1| pretty sure you do have blocking powers]. Did Andy not congratulate you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:32, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::We now have confirmation direct from Andy. It's on [[User_talk:SamHB | my talk page]]. Go have a look. He appreciates your work. (As do I.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:01, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

== News maybe? ==
I found this article on cracked.com mentioning 6 studies that proves that not all fields of science are trustworthy and that some scientists will do what they can to get more funds for their "research". I'm not 100% sure if it's trustworthy, but maybe after proofreading it you guys could use this in your news or global warming article somewhere. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:20, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

:Thanks, I'll look into it. But how do you think we would look linking to ''Cracked'' on the front page? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:25, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

::I guess I understand, but its rare to see a usually liberal/gray site admit something like this. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:28, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

:::They also did a piece something like "10 things you didn't know about life behind the iron curtain" featuring a writer who lived in Romania. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
::::I suggest you be vigilant with the main page as some may try to vandalize it with crude drawings using this "hidden" graffiti program -> http://dudl.me/ Vandals use it all the time on major sites. -[[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 16:54, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

== If you like doing administrative tasks ==

If you like doing administrative tasks, there are a lot of orphan pages that need to be linked to from other pages. You can find the list of them here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=0 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:14, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
::I started the work by deorphanizing the [[African Burial Ground]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:23, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

== Relativity ==

Thanks for calling that missing counterexample to my attention, and thereby (that means "because of what preceded" :-) keeping the numbering consistent. I'll get on it when I have the time. It will be a fairly straightforward one. In fact, there have been very few truly original "counterexamples" lately. I will try to eschew sesquipedalian expressions, and generally avoid "a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind" :-) Though such disdain is often hard to avoid on that page :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:13, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's a lot to be said for self-confidence I suppose. Have at it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:09, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

== another spammer on the loose ==

Check RC. I'm sure you would have noticed it pretty soon. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:30, 30 November 2014 (EST)
:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 15:40, 30 November 2014 (EST)

== No hard feelings, I hope? ==

I really do respect you. And I see that, with your recent edits to the National debt, along with many other things, you really are a subject matter expert, and willing to use that expertise. There are a lot of people that just fix punctuation and stuff, in what appears to be just an attempt to curry favor.

Now if I could just figure out what "withering patrician disdain" means!

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:Do a search of the phrase in Conservapedia! It's one of Conservative's favorite quotes. You'll see who the original missive was ''actually'' aimed at without the substitution of your name. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)

::My goodness, you're right! I hadn't thought of that. Amazing. The way so much of his <s>garbage</s> writing is. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 1 December 2014 (EST)

== Proper use of mainpage talk ==

OK, I'm going to follow your example, and try to get people to use main talk for discussion of the main page content only, and the community portal for general discussion, flaming, arguing, etc. We'll see how that goes. Maybe people are just too set in their ways, and they'll go back to the old way.

By the way, I have a vague recollection of someone fixing the lose vs. loose error recently, and I think it was you. If so, thank you. I fear that I am loosing my mind over this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:31, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:The switch over to the community portal seems to be going extremely well. I'm pleased that something I did is already getting people to use the right page. By the way, at the very bottom you will see a note by me about a user ("TheonlySIL", or whatever) that really, really, really desires to be blocked. Just sayin' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Project ==

Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#A_project_for_active_editors_to_collaborate_on The collaborative project]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:04, 25 December 2014 (EST)
==Survivalblog==
Thank you for your edits. Don't you think that this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Survival_Blog&curid=132924&diff=1131585&oldid=1131584] was rather rambling to the point of distracting the reader from what we are trying to say? Could you please consider rewriting it for clarity? I think the reader can get the idea without a parody of the blog's writing style. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Your edit improves things. It would be my preference to have moved the discussion to a general overview article like [[Survivalism]] and the long quote to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], but I am dropping my concerns. Again, many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:53, 13 January 2015 (EST)

== Conservative vouched for this person. ==

Could you give me a link to this? Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:50, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:They edited together consecutively within the space of one or two minutes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 14 January 2015 (EST)

::Sorry, I didn't know that ''not objecting to'' means ''vouching for''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you ==

I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:20, 21 March 2015 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to make it easier for you to revert edits, and also for you to have night editing. Congratulation!

:Thank you, Andy! I appreciate it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:57, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

== Fixed typo on main page ==

I fixed the typo on the main page. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:20, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== I don't understand ... ==

Why do you keep reverting my edits to the Obama and Unemployment page? We all know that unemployment has fallen (albeit with a lowering workforce participation), why shouldn't the article reflect that?

== I updated the Barack Obama and United States Unemployment article ==

I updated the [[Barack Obama and United States Unemployment]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

== I just sent you an email ==

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

:Thanks for the welcome. I sent you a reply regarding what you said in your e-mail. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a followup email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thank you. I will check into those to see if there's anything I've missed from my own research. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:40, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a final email to tie things up as far as our recent discussions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:24, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

==Inserting false information==
When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Well the CNN article was one. I just remember there being a number of problems. I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.

:When you asked about edits to the LDS article, I thought you were referring to the talk page, but in the article you made a mistake there too that I noted in the edit summary. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:29, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

::But thank you for your positive contributions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:You were behaving like a liberal spammer. The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.
:As for the comment, I'd just be speculating. It was User:Conservative who said it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization. Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag. Beginning with Havelock Ellis. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Christian Science==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Soviet Union ==

The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Re: Atheism and intolerance ==

If you want to review the article [[Atheism and intolerance]] and fix any grammatical/formatting errors, it would be appreciated.

More work on the footnoting of the article is going to be done by the [[User: Conservative]] account this coming weekend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks for the work you did so far on the article. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:16, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I did some more footnoting for the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 03:54, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Thanks for footnoting the entire article. Your assistance is much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:01, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

==Thanks==
for showing me (by example in the Ronald Reagan page) how to group multiple references together. Our little dust-up over the number 111 would not have happened if I had read them all. Sorry about that. Be that as it may, I'm using that technique in the Robert Dicke page. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
:You're welcome. There's a tutorial page on Conservapedia that I learned it from, but I don't where that page is now. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:15, 21 May 2015 (EDT)
::You also have the problem of not being able to find your way around the help pages? I can never find the really tricky things. I know how to use square brackets and double single quotes and stuff, but I can never remember complicated things like footnotes and tables, so I usually try to find a page that has it, and copy it. So, I've been using a page of handwritten notes. I finally typed it in. It's [[How_to_put_links_and_footnotes_into_your_articles]]. Enjoy. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:03, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc^2 ==

The reason I called your edit malicious is that it is not true that I was just sneaking in previous material. I rewrote the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph ''yet again''. Your edit comment said that I was just doing the same thing again. I wasn't. You need to read edits before you just blindly revert them. The same thing goes for your earlier reversion, when you put a redundant pair of sentences ''back in''. You need to pay attention. Many aspects of your recent behavior suggest that you are allowing some kind of personal vendetta to negatively impact your contributions to CP.

So now let's go through the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph paragraph in detail:

::"In 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton ...."

Do you dispute their nationality? Do you dispute that it was a nuclear transmutation? Do you dispute that it was the first? Do you dispute that they won the Nobel Prize for it?

::"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei ...."

Do you dispute that the Nobel announcement said that?

::"This experiment is replicated ... hundreds of times each year."

(That comment, in fact almost all of this paragraph was written by AugustO, as part of his battle with Andy, not by me. AugustO and I have been fighting over this in email.)

Do you dispute that the experiment is frequently replicated?

::"Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ....."

(This is the thing I was specifically trying to clarify) Do you dispute that verifying E=mc^2 was the not the goal of either the experiment or the Nobel Committee?

::"... the equation had already been known and understood for many years ..."

Do you dispute that? Atomic weights and mass defects ("packing fractions") had been known since the early 30's. Do you dispute that? Can you explain, in your own words, how the awareness of atomic weights and mass defects evolved in the early decades of the 20th century?

::"analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation."

Do you dispute that? Did you read AugustO's explanation? Have you looked at a table of atomic weights?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

:You accuse ''me'' of being malicious and destructive? You suddenly level accusations of negligence on my part and just as suddenly declare the accusations to be settled. Is that how carelessly you treat the truths of science as well?

:Here's another example: AugustO and Andy are discussing the nature of the verification of the equation. Andy says "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?" Then you rush in all of a sudden to make sure that there is a statement in the article that insists the equation is already "verified"—while the meaning of that verification is simulataneously being discussed! Is that how you treat the truths of science, by judging the ones to be true as those belonging to whomever can cram in their assertions first?

:Here's a third example: Once you can't cram in your assertions the first, you label my actions malicious and destructive as if I were harming the article, but really I'm just harming your ability to gain the upper hand. You immediately turn and chop the statement I was objecting to into pieces in fatuous eagerness to pursue an effort to pick my brain to see where you can gain the advantage against Andy in other ways. Is that how you treat the truths of science, that that science should be whatever is left over after one person carries out an effort to argumentively overpower another and that might makes right science? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== sent you an email ==

I sent you an email. Please check your email.

== Spacetime, and curvature thereof. ==

OK, accept your latest version. In fact, I just made an edit that made no change at all to the article, but had the edit comment "I accept that. So we're OK, right?". But the oh-so-smart wiki software apparently drops any edit that makes no changes to the text. So I'm telling you here.

Peace. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:04, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

== re: Militant atheism article ==

VargasMilan,

Could you please condense the amount of footnotes appearing the first paragraph of the article [[militant atheism]]. Like the first sentence ends in 6 footnotes which looks horrible. That is too many and is distracting. I know there is a way to have the same number of footnotes appearing at the bottom, but just have the number of footnotes appearing in the text be less. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

:That looks like an interesting article. Are you going to promote it soon? If it is urgent I can do some work on it, but I am actually on vacation until Tuesday. Don't hesitate to respond via e-mail if you need to and take care. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:32, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
::It is not urgent and can wait until Tuesday. It is a nice article. At this time, I have some things to attend to so I don't have any plans to promote the article soon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:33, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
:::Don't forget about tidying up the opening sentence of [[militant atheism]] so it doesn't appear as if there are 6 footnotes for that sentence in the text for that sentence. You can have 6 footnotes show up after someone clicks the footnote, but I don't want so many footnotes appearing in the sentence when you first read it. Thanks again for all your assistance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
Actually, I just want the footnoting for the first sentence of the article [[militant atheism]] fixed so it appears as if there are 1-3 footnotes at first glance. Of course, once they click a footnote, it can consist of more than one footnote at the bottom of the page.

You can keep the rest of the footnoting of the article the same. Just fix the first sentence.

Again, thanks for all your assistance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
:Is the footnoting formatting fix for the first sentence of the [[militant atheism]] article an easy fix or is the authors frequent use of a lot of text in his footnotes a big problem as far as fixing the footnoting.

:I think 6 footnotes appearing in the text for one sentence is excessive so I want to hide them in the bottom of the page. Ideally, I would want 1-3 footnotes appearing in the body of the text for the first sentence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:48, 5 July 2015 (EDT)

::They get recombined with later footnotes, and these later footnotes get connected with still later footnotes, so they and the later footnotes need to be duplicated. I am trying what I think is the fastest way, and that is to work from the bottom up. This isn't some obscure article; it was obviously very well documented by you and others, so I'm sure the effort has high enough priority to be well worth while. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:04, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

::I'm halfway through; it should take three and a half hours at the very most. I'll be able to spend a few hours on them tonight and two hours tomorrow night to take care of whatever's left. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:13, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
:::OK. The only reason I want this done is have the first sentence appear as if it has 1 to 3 footnotes. 6 footnotes in the key first sentence does not look attractive. It is OK if those same 6 footnotes appear on the bottom though. For cosmetic reasons, I just want it to be appear as if 1-3 footnotes as far as the first sentence text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:45, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

Hello User:VargasMilan, I am the main author of the [[militant atheism]] article and I appreciate your efforts to improve the formatting of the article. In the style that I wrote the article, because some of my references were used throughout the article, one could simply go to the references section and see all the specific locations in the article where one reference was being used. I am concerned that one may no longer be able to do this with your new formatting. I am okay with User:Conservative's wish to have references combined only in the introduction of the article. However, in the rest of the article, I think it would be best to have the original formatting restored, so that individuals will be able to locate all the places where one reference is being used. What are your thoughts? With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 17:15, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

:I was following [[Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Avoid_multiple_footnotes._Put_all_sources_into_a_single_note.]] which is a link on the Conservapedia Manual of Style page. I don't think I should have to change them back unless there is an error in the Manual of Style. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:49, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

== Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015 and then another one in August ==

Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015. And then another one in August of 2015. It is going to be a TERRIBLE summer for atheism this year. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

:I look forward to seeing them. I hope they will be on more tasteful subjects than bestiality and of more far-reaching significance than something Richard Dawkins said in an elevator. Otherwise, I doubt that they will contribute to it being a terrible summer for atheism. I can't imagine someone accepting Christianity because of someone's crude remark in an elevator. You really can do better than that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
::SamHB, it wouldn't surprise me if you were an atheist and if you edited another wiki whose editors are often obsessed with me.

::''This discussion has strayed off topic and has been moved to [[User_talk:SamHB#Another_atheism_article_is_coming_out_probably_in_July_0f_2015_and_then_another_one_in_August]]''
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:02, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

== Militant atheism and red links in footnotes ==

I have a dozen plus projects that I have to tackle as soon as possible, but I did make a lot of progress in terms of "dered" linking the red links in the [[militant atheism]] footnotes.

If you could finish the "dered" linking the footnotes, the footnotes are good enough at this point. I just wanted to make this excellent article look more visually appealing.

And thanks for all the help you did so far. Much appreciated. I am sure the main author of this article will be very pleased with the assistance you provided. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:03, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

:You're welcome. Just remove the brackets? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:04, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Yes, just remove the brackets. Once the red links are gone, the article will look fantastic. Red links are an eyesore and detract from the appearance an article. I think they should be created only if the editor knows they will be filled in soon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:15, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

== Militant atheism remaining work ==

I largely fixed all the red links in the footnotes.

Second, using a dead link checker (see: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/linkchecker/ or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/check-my-links/ojkcdipcgfaekbeaelaapakgnjflfglf?hl=en-GB ), I found that footnotes 3,44,66,67,85,90,119 and 124 have some dead link issues.

If you could replace the dead links with live links, it would be appreciated.

Thanks for all your assistance so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks for all your work on the militant atheism article.

::There are still a few red links and they are associated with dates. If you know how to get rid of the handful of red links remaining, it would be appreciated.

::I am hoping we get the article in perfect shape this month. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:28, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

== re: final steps for militant atheism article ==

The main author of the militant atheism article is going to work on the article some more later this month. He likes a lot of the stuff we did.

He put a lot of work into the article and is kind of particular about the article.

Thanks for all your help. And he thanks you as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:58, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

== Conservative and you blocking me. ==
I do not want to be offensive but every time I come back on here you reblock me. The first time I was unblocked you reblocked me for trolling, but did not specify what you meant by that. The second time I came back Conservative reblocked me for changing the hyphens in my signature on sexuality article talk pages. I do not feel that violated the topic ban in that area, because hyphens surely have nothing to do with the meaning of what I wrote there. Changing my signature is surely not making statements or asking questions of any kind about sexuality.Paul Bustion 15:10, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

Henry Ford

2015-07-19T18:13:16Z

Burke39: Removed unsourced disparaging statement about Ford (suggesting he could not read without providing a source). This article reads like an anti-Ford advertisement it needs to be more neutral.

[[Image:HenryFord.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Henry Ford and his Model T ]]
'''Henry Ford''' (July 30 1863 –April 7 1947) was the founder of the [[Ford Motor Company]] and of modern mass production and assembly line techniques. His introduction in 1908 of the [[Model T]] Ford automobile revolutionized transportation and, indeed, American industry. As sole owner of the Ford Company he became one of the three or four richest and best-known people in the world. He is credited with "[[Fordism]]," that is, the mass production of large numbers of inexpensive automobiles, coupled with high wages for his workers—notably the $5.00 a day pay scale adopted in 1914. Fordism promoted the consumer culture based on high income workers who could afford to buy cars at a time when only the rich in Europe owned an automobile.

Ford, though poorly educated, had a global vision, with consumerism as the key to peace. His intense commitment to lowering costs resulted in many technical and business innovations, including a franchise system that put a dealership in every city in North America, and in major cities on six continents. Ford left most of his vast wealth to the [[Ford Foundation]], but arranged for his family to permanently control the company after his death.

He was a hero to conservatives for his entrepreneurship and positive impact on society; he opposed the [[New Deal]] but was tarnished by his writing criticisms of Jews in the 1920s.

==Early years==

Ford was born on a farm near Detroit, Michigan. His father William Ford (1826-1905) was a Protestant born in County Cork, Ireland. His mother Mary Litogot Ford (1839-1876) was born in Michigan, she was the youngest child of Belgian immigrants, her parents died when Mary was a child and she was adopted by neighbors. Henry was a poor student and never learned to read or write well; he early on showed a passion for mechanisms. At fifteen, he had a reputation as a watch repairman, having dismantled and reassembled timepieces of friends and neighbors dozens of times.<ref>Ford, ''My Life and Work'', 22-24; Nevins and Hill, ''Ford TMC'', 58.</ref>

When Henry was 13, his mother died, a harsh psychological blow. His father expected Henry to eventually take over the family farm, but Henry despised farm work. With his mother gone, little remained to keep him on the farm. In 1879, he went to nearby Detroit to work as an apprentice machinist. In 1882, he returned to Dearborn to work on the family farm and became adept at operating the Westinghouse portable steam engine; Westinghouse hired him to service their steam engines.

Upon his marriage to Clara Ala Bryant in 1888, Ford supported himself by farming and running a sawmill. They had a single child: [[Edsel Ford]] (1893-1943).

In 1891, Ford became an engineer with the Edison Illuminating Company, and after his promotion to Chief Engineer in 1893, he had enough time and money to devote attention to his personal experiments on gasoline engines. In 1896 he built a self-propelled vehicle named the Quadricycle, and continuously worked to improve it.<ref> See [http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1896/quad.html] </ref> At this time Ford gained national fame as a racing car driver, leading to connections with investors who wanted to set him up in business.

== Ford Motor Company ==
In 1903 Ford, with 11 other investors and $28,000 in capital, incorporated the [[Ford Motor Company]]. In a newly-designed car, Ford drove an exhibition in which the racer covered the distance of a mile on the ice of Lake St. Clair in 39.4 seconds (91.3 MPH), which was a new land speed record. Race driver Barney Oldfield exhibited the car around the country, publicizing the the Ford brand.
===$5 dollar wage===
Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 a day wage that more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. The move proved extremely profitable. Instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of [[vertical integration]] also proved successful, as Ford built a gigantic factory that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles.

=== The Model T ===
The [[Model T]] was introduced on October 1, 1908. It had many important innovations—such as the steering wheel on the left, which every other company soon copied. The entire engine and transmission were enclosed; the 4 cylinders were cast in a solid block; the suspension used two semi-elliptic springs. It had 20 horsepower and high wheels, so it could handle the muddy unpaved roads that typified the countryside. It could cruise at 45 miles per hour, getting about 10 miles per gallon of gasoline. There were two forward gears and one reverse gear. A hand crank was used to start it. The car was very simple to drive, and—more important—easy and cheap to repair. It was so cheap at $825 in 1908 (the price fell every year) that by the 1920s a majority of American drivers learned to drive on the Model T, leaving fond memories for millions. Ford created a massive publicity machine in Detroit to ensure every newspaper carried stories and ads about the new product. Ford's network of local dealers made the car ubiquitous in virtually every city in North America. As independent dealers the franchises grew rich and publicized not just the Ford but the very concept of automobiling; local motor clubs sprang up to help new drivers and to explore the countryside. Ford was always eager to sell to farmers, who looked on the vehicle as a commercial device to help their business. Sales skyrocketed—several years posted 100 gains on the previous year. Always on the hunt for more efficiency and lower costs, in 1913 Ford introduced the moving assembly belts into his plants, which enabled an enormous increase in production. Sales passed 250,000 in 1914. By 1916, as the price dropped to $360 for the basic touring car, sales reached 472,000.<ref>Lewis 1976, pp 41-59</ref>

By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model T's. As Ford wrote in his autobiography, "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".<ref> See [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/hnfrd10.txt Ford, ''My Life and Work''], Chapter IV</ref> Model T's rolled off the assembly line until 1927; the total production run was 15,007,034 cars.

In 1918 President [[Woodrow Wilson]] personally asked Ford to run for the Senate from Michigan as a Democrat. Although the nation was at war Ford ran as a peace candidate and a strong supporter of the proposed [[League of Nations]].<ref> Watts, pp 243-48</ref> In December 1918 Ford turned the presidency of Ford Motor Company over to his son [[Edsel Ford]]. Henry, however, retained final decision authority and sometimes reversed Edsel. The two purchased all remaining stock from other investors, thus giving the family sole ownership of the company.

By the mid-1920s, sales of the Model T began to decline due to rising competition. Other auto makers, especially General Motors, offered payment plans through which consumers could buy their cars; they offered a full range of vehicles from the cheapest to the most elaborate, instead of the one-size-fits-all Model T. Consumers eagerly paid more for more modern mechanical features and styling. Despite urgings from Edsel, Henry steadfastly refused to incorporate new features into the Model T or to form a customer credit plan.

=== The "Model A" and Ford's Later Career===
By 1926, flagging sales of the Model T and the roaring success of General Motors finally convinced Ford he needed to introduce a new model car. Edsel insisted on the inclusion of a sliding-shift transmission. The result was the successful [[Ford Model A]], introduced in December, 1927 and produced through 1931, with a total output of over four million cars. The company then adopted an annual model change system similar to that in use by automakers today. Not until the 1930s did Ford overcome his objection to finance companies, and allowed the Ford-owned [[Universal Credit Company]] became a major car financing operation.

===Death of Edsel Ford===
In May 1943, Edsel Ford died, leaving the presidency vacant. Ford put his long-time associate [[Harry Bennett]] in charge. Edsel's widow Eleanor, who had inherited Edsel's voting stock, wanted her son [[Henry Ford II]] to take over the position. The issue was settled for a period when Henry himself, at age 79, took over the presidency personally. Henry Ford II was released from the Navy and became an executive vice president, while Bennett had a seat on the board and was responsible for personnel, labor relations, and public relations.

=== Ford's labor philosophy ===

Henry Ford was a pioneer of "[[welfare capitalism]]" designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men a year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers. On [[January 5]], [[1914]], Ford announced his five-dollar a day program. The revolutionary program called for a reduction in length of the workday from 9 to 8 hours, a 5 day work week, and a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers.<ref>Samuel Crowther [http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm HENRY FORD: Why I Favor Five Days' Work With Six Days' Pay] World's Work, October 1926 pp. 613-616</ref>

Ford had been criticized by Wall Street for starting the 40 hour work week and a minimum wage. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing, and therefore be good for the economy. Ford labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages. The wage was offered to men over age 22, who had worked at the company for 6 months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Sociological Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking and gambling. The Sociological Department used 150 investigators and support staff to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for the profit-sharing.

Ford was adamantly against labor unions in his plants. To forestall union activity, he promoted Harry Bennett, a former Navy boxer, to be the head of the Service Department. Bennett employed various intimidation tactics to squash union organizing. The most famous incident, in 1937, was a bloody brawl between company security men and organizers that became known as "The Battle of the Overpass."

Ford was the last Detroit automaker to recognize the [[United Auto Workers]] union (UAW). A sit-down strike by the UAW union in April 1941 closed the [[River Rouge Plant]]. Under pressure from Edsel, Henry Ford finally agreed to collective bargaining at Ford plants, and the first contract with the UAW was signed in June 1941.

==Ford Airplane Company==
Ford, like other automobile companies, entered the aviation business during [[World War I]], building Liberty engines. After the war, it returned to auto manufacturing until 1925, when Henry Ford acquired the Stout Metal Airplane Company.

Ford's most successful aircraft was the Ford 4AT Trimotor—called the “Tin Goose” because of its corrugated metal construction. It used a new alloy called Alclad that combined the corrosion resistance of aluminum with the strength of duralumin. The Trimotor first flew on June 11, 1926, and was the first successful U.S. passenger airliner, accommodating about 12 passengers in a rather uncomfortable fashion. Several variants were also used by the U.S. Army. About 200 Trimotors were built before it was discontinued in 1933, when the Ford Airplane Division shut down because of poor sales due to the Depression.

==Peace Ship==
In 1915, Jewish pacifist [[Rosika Schwimmer]] worked with Ford, who funded a peace ship to Europe, where World War I was raging, for himself and about 170 other prominent peace leaders. He talked to President [[Woodrow Wilson]] about the trip but had no government support. His group went to neutral Sweden and the Netherlands to meet with peace activists there. Ford, the target of much ridicule, left the ship as soon as it reached Sweden.

==Dearborn Independent and Anti-Semitism==

In 1918, Ford's closest aide and private secretary, Ernest G. Liebold, purchased an obscure weekly newspaper, ''The Dearborn Independent''. In 1920, from May 22 to October 2, it ran numerous antisemitic articles under Ford's name. Ford never wrote any of them, but he knew the contents.<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew]</ref> The ''Independent'' ran for eight years, from 1920 until 1927, during which Liebold was editor. The newspaper published "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" which was discredited as a forgery during the ''Independent'''s publishing run by ''The Times'' of London.<ref> Baldwin (2000)</ref>

Denounced by the [[Anti-Defamation League]] (ADL), the articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms and violence against Jews (Volume 4, Chapter 80), preferring to blame incidents of mass violence on the Jews themselves. Friends and business associates said they warned Ford about the contents of the ''Independent'', and that Ford probably never read them. <ref> Watts pp x, 376-387; Lewis (1976) pp 135-59.</ref> However, court testimony in a libel suit, brought by one of the targets of the newspaper, stated that Ford did indeed know about the contents of the ''Independent'' in advance of publication. <ref> Baldwin (2000)</ref>

A libel lawsuit brought by Jewish farm cooperative organizer Aaron Sapiro in response to anti-Semitic remarks led to a highly publicized trial; Ford closed the ''Independent'' in December 1927 and apologized for attacking the Jewish people. At the trial, William Cameron, the editor of Ford's "Own Page", a regular feature of the magazine, testified that Ford never wrote or dictated the editorials, even though they were under his byline. Cameron testified that he never discussed the content of the pages or sent them to Ford for his approval.<ref>Lewis, (1976) pp. 140-156; Baldwin p 220-221.</ref> Everyone agreed, however, that Ford had a general knowledge of the anti-semitic thrust and funded their publication.

The ADL mobilized prominent Jews and non-Jews to publicly oppose Ford's message. They formed a coalition of Jewish groups for the same purpose, and raised constant objections in the Detroit press. Before leaving his presidency early in 1921, [[Woodrow Wilson]] joined other leading Americans in a statement that rebuked Ford. A boycott against Ford products by Jews had an impact, and Ford shut down the magazine in 1927, recanting his views in a public letter to the ADL. <ref> Baldwin (2000)</ref>

Distribution of ''International Jew'' was halted by Ford.

Ford's reputation was seriously damaged by his episode of anti-Semitism, even though he recanted in 1927 and never repeated it. He was indeed responsible for the publication, in the U.S. of the ''Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' and several other pamphlets aimed against Jewish influence. He paid for the publication of an anti-Semitic book ''The International Jew'', a work endorsed by Hitler. Hitler loved automobiles and like many Europeans idealized Ford for bringing autos to the people, which Hitler tried (and failed) to emulate through the Volkswagen.<ref> Ford was honored by the Nazi government for his automobiles, as was General Motors.</ref>

== Ford's international business==
Ford's philosophy was one of economic independence for the United States. His River Rouge Plant was the world's largest industrial complex, even able to produce its own steel. Ford's goal was to produce a vehicle from scratch without reliance on foreign trade, or New York bankers. He believed in the global expansion of his company. He believed that international trade and cooperation led to international peace, and used the assembly line process and production of the Model T to demonstrate it<ref>Watts 236-40</ref> He opened Ford assembly plants in Britain and Canada in 1911, and soon became the biggest automotive producer in those countries. In 1912, Ford cooperated with Agnelli of [[Fiat]] to launch the first Italian automotive assembly plants. The first plants in Germany were built in the 1920s with the encouragement of [[Herbert Hoover]] and the Commerce department, which agreed with Ford's theory that international trade was essential to world peace.<ref>Wilkins and Hill (1964)</ref> In the 1920s Ford also opened plants in Australia, India, and France, and by 1929, he had successful dealerships on six continents.

Ford experimented with a commercial rubber plantation in the Amazon jungle called "Fordlândia"; it was one of the few failures. In 1929, Ford accepted [[Stalin]]'s invitation to build a model plant (NNAZ, today GAZ) at Gorky, a city later renamed [[Nizhny Novgorod]], and he sent American engineers and technicians to help set it up, including [[Walter Reuther]], who later headed the auto workers union, the [[UAW]]. The Ford Motor Company was eager to conduct business in any nation where the United States had peaceful diplomatic relations:
* Ford of Australia
* Ford of Britain
* Ford of Argentina
* Ford of Brazil
* Ford of Canada
* Ford of Europe
* [http://www.india.ford.com/ Ford India]
* [http://www.ford.co.za/ Ford South Africa]
* [http://www.ford.com.mx/ Ford Mexico]

By 1932, Ford was manufacturing one third of all the world’s automobiles.
===Ford's image in Europe===
Ford's image transfixed Europeans, especially the Germans, arousing the "fear of some, the infatuation of others, and the fascination among all".<ref>Nolan p 31</ref> Germans who discussed "[[Fordism]]" often believed that it represented something quintessentially American. They saw the size, tempo, standardization, and philosophy of production demonstrated at the Ford factory as a national service - an "American thing" that represented the culture of United States. Both supporters and critics insisted that Fordism epitomized American capitalist development, and that the auto industry was the key to understanding economic and social relations in the United States. As one German explained, "Automobiles have so completely changed the American's mode of life that today one can hardly imagine being without a car. It is difficult to remember what life was like before Mr. Ford began preaching his doctrine of salvation"<ref>Nolan, p 31</ref> For many Germans, Henry Ford himself embodied the essence of successful Americanism.

== Death ==
Ford suffered an initial heart attack in 1938, after which he turned over the running of his company to Edsel. Edsel's 1943 death brought Henry Ford out of retirement. In ill health and failing memory, he ceded the presidency to his grandson [[Henry Ford II]] in September 1945. He died in 1947 at the age of 83 and is buried in the Ford Cemetery in Detroit.

==Achievements==

Henry Ford did not invent the [[automobile]]--that was done by German Karl Benz. Ford did not invent the assembly line; that was done by Ransom E. Olds, but Ford perfected it. Ford's team did invent the [[Model T]] automobile. This invention revolutionized the American economy. He mass produced his Model T using the [[assembly line]], making cars affordable to the common person for the first time ever. He also paid his workers very well, which, in the long run, paid off as he was creating his own [[consumers]]. That too was a new idea. Ford claimed 161 U.S. [[patent]]s to his credit.

==Sayings==
Ford hired a team of ghostwriters who wrote endless stories, anecdotes and jokes that were distributed in magazines and pamphlets given away by Ford dealers.

<blockquote>
“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success,” said Ford. “If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.”
</blockquote>
:"Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right."

==Bibliography==
[[Image:fmclogo.png|thumb|200px|right]]
===Biographies===
* Bak, Richard. ''Henry and Edsel: The Creation of the Ford Empire'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Henry-Edsel-Creation-Ford-Empire/dp/0471234877/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975402&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Brinkley, Douglas G. ''Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Wheels-World-Company-Century-Progress/dp/B000BZ99PQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975451&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Halberstam, David. "Citizen Ford" ''American Heritage'' 1986 37(6): 49-64. interpretive essay
* Jardim, Anne. ''The First Henry Ford: A Study in Personality and Business Leadership'' (1970).
* Lacey, Robert. ''Ford: The Men and the Machine'' (1986). popular biography
* Lewis, David I. ''The Public Image of Henry Ford: An American Folk Hero and His Company'' (1976), much broader than title suggests
* Nevins, Allan and Frank Ernest Hill. ''Ford: The Times, The Man, The Company'' (vol 1, 1954); ''Ford: Expansion and Challenge, 1915-1933'' (1957); ''Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933-1962'' (1962), the standard history of the company and biography of Ford; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 1]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 2]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book for vol 3] the major scholarly history
* Nye, David E. ''Henry Ford: "Ignorant Idealist."'' 1979.
* Watts, Steven. ''The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century'' (2005), major biography

===Specialized studies===
* Batchelor, Ray. ''Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design'' (1994).
* Bonin, Huber et al. ''Ford, 1902-2003: The European History'' 2 vol Paris 2003. ISBN 2-914369-06-9 scholarly essays in English; reviewed in Len Holden, "Fording the Atlantic: Ford and Fordism in Europe" in ''Business History '' Volume 47, #1 Jan 2005 pp 122-127
* Brinkley, Douglas. "Prime Mover". ''American Heritage'' 2003 54(3): 44-53. on Model T
* Bryan, Ford R. ''Henry's Lieutenants'', 1993; ISBN 0-8143-2428-2
* Bryan, Ford R. ''Beyond the Model T: The Other Ventures of Henry Ford'' (1990).
* Dempsey, Mary A. "Fordlandia," ''Michigan History'' 1994 78(4): 24-33. Ford's rubber plantation in Brazil
* Jacobson, D. S. "The Political Economy of Industrial Location: the Ford Motor Company at Cork 1912-26." ''Irish Economic and Social History'' 1977 4: 36-55. Ford and Irish politics
* Kraft, Barbara S. ''The Peace Ship: Henry Ford's Pacifist Adventure in the First World War'' (1978)
* Lewis, David L. "Ford and Kahn" ''Michigan History'' 1980 64(5): 17-28. Ford commissioned architect Albert Kahn to design factories
* Lewis, David L. "Henry Ford and His Magic Beanstalk" . ''Michigan History'' 1995 79(3): 10-17. Ford's interest in soybeans and plastics
* Lewis, David L. "Working Side by Side" ''Michigan History'' 1993 77(1): 24-30. Why Ford hired large numbers of black workers
* McIntyre, Stephen L. "The Failure of Fordism: Reform of the Automobile Repair Industry, 1913-1940: ''Technology and Culture'' 2000 41(2): 269-299. repair shops rejected flat rates
* Meyer, Stephen. ''The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921'' (1981) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102499921 online edition from [[Questia]]]
* Nolan, Mary. ''Visions of Modernity: American Business and the Modernization of Germany'' (1994); [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58971942 online from [[Questia]]]' also [http://www.amazon.com/Visions-Modernity-American-Business-Modernization/dp/0195070216/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975895&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Raff, Daniel M. G. and Lawrence H. Summers. "Did Henry Ford Pay Efficiency Wages?" ''Journal of Labor Economics'' (October 1987) 5#4 pp S57-S86 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0734-306X(198710)5%3A4%3CS57%3ADHFPEW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F in JSTOR]
* Pietrykowski, Bruce. "Fordism at Ford: Spatial Decentralization and Labor Segmentation at the Ford Motor Company, 1920-1950" ''Economic Geography'' 1995 71(4): 383-401.
* Roediger, David, ed "Americanism and Fordism - American Style: Kate Richards O'hare's 'Has Henry Ford Made Good?'" ''Labor History'' 1988 29(2): 241-252. Socialist praise for Ford in 1916
* Segal, Howard P. "'Little Plants in the Country': Henry Ford's Village Industries and the Beginning of Decentralized Technology in Modern America" ''Prospects'' 1988 13: 181-223. Ford created 19 rural workplaces as pastoral retreats
* Tedlow, Richard S. "The Struggle for Dominance in the Automobile Market: the Early Years of Ford and General Motors" ''Business and Economic History'' 1988 17: 49-62. Ford stressed low price based on efficient factories but GM did better in oligopolistic competition by including investment in manufacturing, marketing, and management.
* Thomas, Robert Paul. "The Automobile Industry and its Tycoon" ''Explorations in Entrepreneurial History'' 1969 6(2): 139-157. argues Ford did NOT have much influence on US industry,
* Valdés, Dennis Nodin. "Perspiring Capitalists: Latinos and the Henry Ford Service School, 1918-1928" ''Aztlán'' 1981 12(2): 227-239. Ford brought hundreds of Mexicans in for training as managers
* Wilkins, Mira and Frank Ernest Hill, ''American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents'' (1964)
* Williams, Karel, Colin Haslam and John Williams, "Ford versus `Fordism': The Beginning of Mass Production?" ''Work, Employment & Society'', Vol. 6, No. 4, 517-555 (1992), stress on Ford's flexibility and commitment to continuous improvements

===Anti-Semitism ===
* Baldwin, Neil; ''Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate''(2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/100722934?title=Henry%20Ford%20and%20the%20Jews%3a%20The%20Mass%20Production%20of%20Hate online edition]
* Foust, James C. "Mass-produced Reform: Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent" ''American Journalism'' 1997 14(3-4): 411-424.
* Kandel, Alan D. "Ford and Israel" ''Michigan Jewish History'' 1999 39: 13-17. covers business and philanthropy
* Lee, Albert; ''Henry Ford and the Jews'' (1980)
* Lewis, David L. "Henry Ford's Anti-semitism and its Repercussions" ''Michigan Jewish History'' 1984 24(1): 3-10.
* Ribuffo, Leo P. "Henry Ford and the International Jew" ''American Jewish History'' 1980 69(4): 437-477. by conservative historian [http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism/henry-ford/leo-p-ribuffo-essay-date-1980 full text online]
* Sapiro, Aaron L. "A Retrospective View of the Aaron Sapiro-Henry Ford Case" ''Western States Jewish Historical Quarterly'' 1982 15(1): 79-84.
* Woeste, Victoria Saker. "Insecure Equality: Louis Marshall, Henry Ford, and the Problem of Defamatory Antisemitism, 1920-1929" ''Journal of American History'' 2004 91(3): 877-905. [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/91.3/woeste.html in History Cooperative]

===Primary sources===
* Ford, Henry and Samuel Crowther. ''[http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/7213 My Life and Work]'', 1922
* Ford, Henry and Crowther, Samuel; ''Today and Tomorrow'', 1926
* Ford, Henry and Crowther, Samuel; ''Moving Forward'', 1930
* Bennett, Harry, as told to Paul Marcus. ''Ford: We Never Called Him Henry'', 1951
* Sorensen, Charles E., with Samuel T. Williamson. ''My Forty Years with Ford'', 1956; ISBN 0-915299-36-4

==External links==
* [http://automotivehistoryonline.com/ford.htm Automobile History Online - Henry Ford History & Photos]
* [http://www.quotationsbook.com/authors/2560/Henry_Ford Notable quotations and speech excerpts]
* [http://www.myviplife.com/lifestories/vipbusiness/Henry_Ford_wa.php?c=3 Timeline][http://www.myviplife.com/lifestories/vipbusiness/Henry_Ford_ch.php?c=3 and Quotes by Henry Ford]
* [http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1958/2/1958_2_65.shtml Nevins and Hill tell story of Peace Ship in ''American Heritage'']
* [http://www.hfha.org/ The Henry Ford Heritage Association]
* [http://thoughtaudio.com/titlelist/ford/index.html Listen to “The Terror of the Machine” by Henry Ford] Free mp3 audio download from [http://thoughtaudio.com/ ThoughtAudio.com]
* [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Henry_Ford]
====notes====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ford, Henry}}
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Philanthropy]]
[[category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[category:Progressive Era]]
[[category:1920s]]
[[Category : People]]
[[Category : Celebrities]]
[[Category : Billionaires]]

Talk:Alfred Kinsey

2015-07-12T16:01:21Z

Burke39: /* Generally articles make statements rather than ask questions, at least that's what I thought */ Removing two dashes from my signature

{{protect|RobS}}
==“He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” ==

The following is a source by source explanation for my removal of the sentence ““He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” from this article.

I removed the source “Felicity Barringer, "Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay," The New York Times, April 15, 1993, p. A- 1.” because the source did not say anything about “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” It did say the numbers were lower than those reported by Kinsey, but not that his methods were in any way flawed. Did not support the claim it claimed to support, so removed.

I removed the source “Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?," The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.” because the source contradicts the first sentence of the article (it says that Kinsey estimated the percentage at 4%), and because source does not claim that he “used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” – it does say “Kinsey's numbers were not based on a statistically valid sample.” But that is a much weaker claim than the article here makes. Additionally, the full title of the article should be given, it is “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay? Estimates Vary By Millions” not “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?”

I removed the source “Barbara Vobejda, "Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid," Washington Post, October 7, 1994, p. A-1.” because it like the previous source does not accuse Kinsey of trying to baffle the unsophisticated, it simply says, “While studies of Americans' sexual practices date back to the work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, much research in the field has focused on fertility, teenage sex or behavior related to AIDS. Many of the studies, including Kinsey's, were not based on a representative sample of the population.” (Very week criticism, if criticism at al,l compared to what the article claims.) Additionally the full title is “Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid; Americans' Average Is Once Per Week”.

I removed the source “Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme” because it does not contain the accusation that Kinsey intended to “baffle the unsophisticated” with his statistics—it does not support the claim it is used to support. Additionally Dr. Reisman has a degree in Communications, not statistics, biology, human behavior, or any relevant field and so is not really an appropriate source for this article at all. (She is also the major proponent of “erototoxins” a theory that has no science to support it—not even any she has produced—which pushes her views so far to the fringe that even if her background were in a relevant field—which, I repeat, it isn’t—she shouldn’t be used as a source here).

I removed the source “Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 1991, p. 104.” because it does not even mention Kinsey – it mentions his institute and a 1970 study conducted by it, but does not even touch on the issue of the statistics used in Kinsey’s major studies. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so was removed.

I removed the source “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.” because it contains the 4% number not the 10% number, and because it does not criticize Kinsy’s statistical methods. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so needed to be removed.

I removed the source “Stuart N. Seidman and Ronald O. Rieder, "A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 151, March 1994, p. 339.” because it notes that the Kinsey studies had “severe methodological limitations” but not the stronger claim that “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” This source goes on to use the Kinsey data to make some evaluations of behavior, while noting the limitations of the data.

None of the 7 sources listed to support the claim, “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated,” in fact support that claim. Since after seven tries no good source to support the claim was provided I removed the claim all together as it will likely not be supported.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I removed these again, sine the revert seemed targeted at the 10% number not this claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::Is there a reason this edit was reverted again? I’ve explained in great detail why each and every single one of these sources does not support the claim it is being used to support and why it was removed. Is there a problem with any of my explanation or is there a quote from one of these sources I’m missing? If the revert could be explained I would greatly appreciate it. I’ve seen no objection to this edit (the only objection I’ve seen to any of my edits to this page is that “everyone knows” the 10% which this edit did not touch—see below for why I made that edit), could the problem with it be explained?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this page by the reverting sysop, but only about the other edit I made that was reverted, nothing about this edit. I assume that this means that this edit was inadvertently reverted and if I see no objections I will make it again shortly.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, seeing no objection. I will remove this material again.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I see that my edit has been reverted and the page is now locked because of an “Edit war”. I’ve still seen no reason why this edit is not ok, please explain.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reisman ==

For the reasons stated above, I would advocate removing Reisman (and especially the reference here [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html] )from this article. I also want to add a few additional reasons here. First, she is not the first person to point out the statistical flaws with Kinsey’s methodology—so she can hardly be said to have “debunked” him. Second, Kinsey’s data, when the limitations of it are recognized, is still valuable and used in scientific papers – one of the sources above used it. Third, her quote stops short of the conclusion it seems to be used to support, in context she goes on to say:
<blockquote> Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.[3] </blockquote>
<blockquote>But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.”</blockquote>
Fourth, she questions his results on homosexuality because:
<blockquote> However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.</blockquote>
That is, she finds some of his subject area distasteful and therefore we should reject all his data. This is (at best) a moral critique of the study of sex research, it is far from a scientific critique. Fifth, her “evidence” of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Kinsey and his associates is minimal at best—I see lots of hand waving and hysteria, but no actual evidence—and even if Kinsey were guilty of encouraging the sexual abuse of children (a fact I highly doubt, but am open to the possibility of being wrong on) that doesn’t invalidate his other numbers.

I would suggest immediate removal of this section from the article for all of these reasons.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:I’m seeing no objections to removing this information. I plan to act on it in the next day or so if I see none.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unreliable source? ==

The referenced article 'The re-whitewashing of pedophile Alfred Kinsey' seems to be quite suspect. Its published by Renew America, who have political disputes with Kinsey's work, and seems to be concerned mainly not with criticisms of his research but a combination of personal accusations and claims that Kinsey was and still is destroying society. Look at some of these:

''This collection comprised nudist magazines that contained pictures and drawings of nude men and boys, and Kinsey would show them to his young male charges in his tent — alone — late at night.''

Source, perhaps? No? Was Kinsey ever charged with any type of sex crime? Nope. Are there any witnesses or accounts of these late-night showings? Nope.

''Kinsey is without a doubt one of the most vile, destructive and perverted individuals I have ever had the displeasure of studying.''

Could it be that the writer is just the tiniest bit biased against Kinsey?

A lot of the claims made are also dubious. The entire section on Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, for example - the Nazi Pedophile who the article claims Kinsey protected and encouraged. If you do a bit of research on that, just a little googling, it seems that this claim was pulled out of the blue by a British TV program called 'Kinsey's Pedophiles' - which based its claims on 'newspaper findings' without nameing any specific newspaper. A claim which it appears to have in turn pulled from the claims of one Dr. Judith Reisman - who the author of the re-whitewashing article seems to hold in high estem.

This Reisman is also reaponsible for many of the other claims repeated - most, if not all. Yet her own credability is pathetic. She appears to be on an anti-Kinsey crusade, publishing a series of books and a website attacking him, and making numerous claims which I can see at a glance to be nonsense. For example, the ''Kinsey's 'research' alleged that 10% of American males were homosexual'' line, which is actually just a misreading of his definition (The research actually claimed that 10% of males had homosexual tendencies, which could include bisexuality, or even heterosexuals who had recurring homosexual thoughts or fantasies even if not acted upon). And she makes some very dubious claims - once stateing that watching pornography caused the formation of toxic chemicals in the brain.

The re-whitewashing writer seems to have a bit of a nazi obcession, comparing Kinsey to them no less than five times. Including one time where he argues that Kinsey must be like the Nazis because they both supported eugenics - well, eugenics was hugely popular at that time, quite a few US states passed eugenics laws and yet noone calls those representatives Nazis. It was in fashion.

I just dont think we should refer to this collection of unfounded accusations and lies, written by a peddler of unfounded accusations and lies, in turn repeated by the creator of unfounded accusations and lies and without a spec of credability at any chain. I advise that it be removed, and never refered to here again, in the name of retaining what little credability Conservapedia has.

I have not seen such an appallingly bad source used on Conservapedia since the article that claimed the Nazi Party encouraged homosexuality.

Suricou, the annoyed raven.

== 10% or 4% ==

Two of the references use on the original version of this page show that Kinsey claimed that 4% not 10% of the American public was homosexual—no references have been provided supporting the 10% claim—I think that if my addition is going to be reverted, at least some sources should be provided. The articles make a point of saying the Kinsey was misunderstood to be claiming the 10% number, so a reference to “everybody knows” Kinsey said it is not sufficient here.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::The sources point out that common knowledge is wrong.
::And I didn’t change the 10% number so the revert you just did put back the bad sources discussed above not here.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Waht we need is the GAO report from here. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.2749:] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::This link says nothing about the 10% number. It says that Congress considered a bill to have the GAO look into whether or not Kinsey did anything wrong—that has nothing to do with what number he reported.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::If you look here [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR02749:@@@X], you will see that the bill was never voted on (it went to a subcommittee where the Republican controlled House let it die) so no GAO report was ever made.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The report was ordered because the 10% made is way into federally funded school texts for 30 odd years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, the report was never ordered—see the link I provided. Second, the report was considered because of the child sexuality information not the homosexuality information—see section 2 of the bill. Third, the number is not in the link you provided.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No one said the number was in the link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Ok. Then how is it relevant? It is not about homosexuality at all, it doesn’t talk about homosexuality, and the bill was never passed—so no report was ever made. How is this at all relevant to the subject under debate here (whether Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men were homosexual or whether he claimed 4% were).?
::::::Also, Please do not forget to address my points numbered 1 and 2 above.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--) There is no debate. Kinsey made the claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:I provided two sources that clearly say he did not make the claim, but that people commonly misunderstand him to have made the claim. (They were “Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?, Estimates Vary By Millions" The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.” and “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.”) You have asserted that “It’s common knowledge.” I have explained that the common knowledge is false and provided two reputable sources to back this up. You have responded by linking to a bill that was never passed suggesting that Kinsey be investigated for sexually abusing children (a bit of a non sequitur, apparently since you have stopped talking about it). You have not suggested that my sources are unreliable, you have not suggested that you have a more reliable source, you have not provided any source (let alone a reliable one) supporting the 10% you have repeated that everyone knows it to be true—despite the fact that I have explained why common knowledge is not to be trusted in this case. The 10% is a misrepresentation of Kinsey’s work.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not supported by the evidence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::What evidence? You have provided no evidence for me to look at. Simply asserting a thing to be true, especially when the evidence I have provided says that what most people believe is false, is not evidence.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:The discussion has moved on to [[User:Conservative/socialeffectevolution]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::There is no need to move the discussion—especially to the page of a user rather than to the appropriate article (I’ve not been invited to post on that user’s page, and will not violate the rule that a user’s page is his castle to pursue this discussion with you)—or to a page that is tangentially related at best—we are discussing what number Kinsey gave on a page about Kinsey, we are not discussing anything about Darwin and so I think talking about this on a page about the impact on society of Darwin’s theory is inappropriate. I will therefore respond here, as this is the relevant location.
::Most of the “evidence” posted on the page you linked to comes from Dr. Reisman, who for all the reasons I listed above is not a reliable source—and I still see no reason to trust her. The other “evidence” you post pertains to the bill we have discussed at length here—which for all the reasons discussed above is still not relevant to this discussion—the Eagle Forum piece on the bill reemphasizes that it deals with child sexuality not homosexuality—that is it is not. So the evidence offered is 1 untrustworthy source and the discussion of an bill never passed (or voted on) that deals with a separate issue. Compared to the two reliable sources (remember they were and are both used in the version of the article you have twice reverted back to) that I have provided for the 4% number—including 1 from a peer reviewed journal in a relevant field, psychiatry.
::To attempt to forestall further misunderstanding let me quote the relevant sources.
::From “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16 (citing to Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.):
::<blockquote>Kinsey et al. found that 4% of men are exclusively homosexual past adolescence. </blockquote>
::There it is in plain English, from a peer reviewed article in a journal on psychiatry - Kinsey gave the 4% number.
::From Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?, Estimates Vary By Millions" The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1:
::<blockquote> Although that figure is so much a part of conventional wisdom that a year-old San Francisco gay magazine is called Ten Percent, Kinsey never intended it as a measure of the proportion of homosexual men. The pioneering sexologist recognized that human sexuality encompasses a range of behaviors shading from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual.</blockquote>
::<blockquote>Kinsey estimated that just 4 percent of men were purely homosexual (that extrapolates to 5 million men in the United States), but said the population could be as high as 10 percent (12.5 million) if men were included who had been "more or less exclusively homosexual" for at least three years out of a lifetime that was otherwise heterosexual. </blockquote>
::There, from a reliable newspaper you have the 4% number given again and an explanation of where the 10% mythos comes from. Kinsey was interested not just in behavior over a life time, but in snapshots of behavior as well—the additional 6% comes from misunderstanding what Kinsey said. He said that 6% of the people he surveyed went through, what we might now call, a homosexual phase, they were not homosexual, they engaged in heterosexual behavior for most of their lives, but they experienced a prolonged period of exclusively homosexual behavior at some point in time. In modern parlance we would call these people bisexual.
::So you can see the reliable sources on this, and how the 10% figure came to be the dominant one in the popular imagination.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Additions ==

Perhaps some information on when Kinsey was born and died and what he did for a living would be appropriate as well. A brief discussion of his overall work might be beneficial. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:12, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:His overall work was to justify and legitimize sexual perversion. He was a homosexual sadomasochist. I don't think any part of his 'overall work' has been beneficial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have not seen anything to point towards homosexuality, and he was married to Clara McMillen and they had four children. If you could show me a document that proves he was homosexual I would appriciate it. --[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]]

:You didn't follow the CWA link I supplied? Maybe <s>you</s> we need to make it more prominent - once you find it - so that other readers can find it too. <s>Would you do that for me, please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:57, 22 June 2007 (EDT)</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:58, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Here's the source the CWA used- ''James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company,1997), pp. 81-85 and 603-604.'', though it would be factual if you mentioned that he was married and had 4 children [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kinsey/peopleevents/p_mac.html]

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:48, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== More Info ==

I like this article as it is, but I think it would also help to have some more info on the historical person. For example, he wrote/edited "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" which was a huge seller. He taught at a University, was married, those sorts of biographical details that make the article flow a little better. It is locked so I can't edit any of this. Thanks! [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:40, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:RobSmith|RobSmith]], so I suggest that you leave him a message on his talk page asking him to unlock it for you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Could somebody de-link the dates and years? ==

What the headline says. Article is locked, so I can't do it myself. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 23:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Default Sort needs to be added ==

Sysops, could one of you please add the following line:

<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Kinsey, Alfred}}</nowiki>

Having the categories sort by first name looks unprofessional. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 20:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Quote==
In ''Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life'', biographer James H. Jones revealed Kinsey's exceeding appetite for sadistic varieties of homosexual sex, voyeurism and other perversions, and how they inspired his social agenda:

"The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey. Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor. Kinsey loathed Victorian morality. He was determined to use science to strip human sexuality of its guilt and repression. He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint. Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States." (p. xii)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:03, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
== Generally articles make statements rather than ask questions, at least that's what I thought ==
Hello. These two sentences, "Why did Alfred Kinsey, the father of sex research, seek out convicted sex offenders and represent their behavior as that of typical American males? Why did he say that adult-child sex was “harmless”?" in my opinion would work out better as statements than questions. So we would state, "Alfred Kinsey sought out convicted sex offenders and represented their behavior as that of typical American males. He thought child sexual molesting was harmless." I also think "adult-child sex" is to neutral and it should just be labeled "child molesting". Anyway, the main reason I think it should be changed is I think an encyclopedia should more so be making statements than asking questions. We can still make clear what he was doing by wrong by stating that it was wrong, it does not need to be phrased as a question. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 20:41, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Thelarche

2015-07-12T15:47:13Z

Burke39: Removed dashes and abbreviated link, did not otherwise change content

This article took text from, [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelarche], which I created and wrote the majority of.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 14:28, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Puberty

2015-07-12T15:46:04Z

Burke39: Shortening my link and removing dashes from my signature. I did not change any substantive content, this is only to make it easier for readers to read what I wrote here before.

"Given that girls typically start puberty at ages 10 or 11, stating that they typically end puberty at 14 or 15 is accurate...while 17 for girls is too late to be typical." This was stated by a wikipedia editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puberty#Note_2_Is_Incomplete] Could anyone look for sources that give 14-15 as the average end of puberty for women, because I think that would be more accurate.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 20:38, 10 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Pedophilia

2015-07-12T15:44:56Z

Burke39: Removed the two dashes from my signature. Another user commented that way of signing was odd. I did not change any content here other than my signature.

Another horribly fascinating topic is [[homosexual priests]] in the Catholic Church. [[Archbishop Milingo]] shocked the world with his revelations (or accusations) of homosexuality and even devil worship in the Vatican. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Only a minority of paedophiles are homosexual, and very, very few homosexuals are paedophiles. The two subjects are hardly interrelated. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::I expected that if you had any information to back up this claim, you would have presented it here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)

On the whole "Pedophilia is encouraged and praised in many parts of the Islamic world" thing? One, the link to the so called support for this doesn't work. Two, if it did, it brings one to an apparent article on Hamas, so a possible small percentage of a terrorist group that makes up a small percentage of Muslims speaks for the whole religion? Three, really? [[User:Bonaparte]]

: Thanks for your objection. The statement has been removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Changes to Article ==
I removed a statement I wrote in the past that Hans Eysenck defined pedophilia as those over 16 having sex with those under. He lives in Great Britain, where the legal age for sex is 16, and where its culturally more acceptable for teenagers to date adults. But in the USA, the most common definition of pedophilia is having sex with those under 18. An example is Mark Foley's case, even though his victims were all 16 or older, the legal age in his jurisdiction for sex, nobody cared because they were still under the age of majority. The majority of the public mistakenly includes sexual attraction to 16-17 year olds in their definition of pedophilia because of the fact that 16-17 year olds are still under the age of majority which makes them legally children. The other part I changed was in reference to advocacy adult/teenage relationships. That's not true pedophilia, but what the public mistakenly thinks is pedophilia. If this article is about the medical definition of pedophilia, then that should be taken out.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:05, 9 March 2015 (EDT)
::::On wikipedia a user wrote when the Eysenck material was put in, "In my view, the way that one scholar defines pedophilia or what one scholar says is the popular definition of pedophilia should not be in the lead. For one, I'm quite sure that the most popular definition is sexual attraction to/a sexual act performed against a minor under 18". She also said, " That is the most popular definition because age 18 is the age of majority in most places, and the general public therefore includes the legal definition of child in their definition of pedophilia. " So the reference to Eysenck should not stay in the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_17#Hans_Eysenck] However the article should focus on the medical definition of pedophilia, not the popular definition, so relations with teenagers should be excluded from the article. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:27, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

:Burke39, what are you doing? Your additions are not even grammatically correct. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:19, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

== This article should be moved to pedophilia ==
This article should be moved to pedophilia, because the article should be about the sexual perversion/mental disorder, not about the people who suffer from it. We have articles about schizophrenia, not schizophrenics, on encyclopedias generally, for example. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 20:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-07-12T07:14:39Z

Burke39: For some reason I missed the other 2 dashes I added to my other signatures here, caught them now, and now they're all abolished. My signature looks more normal this way.

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2015-07-12T07:12:04Z

Burke39: /* Deity of Christ */ I'm removing the dashses because on another wiki I was told they looked peciliar. I never knew how to sign without adding the dashes until recently.

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do '''''not''''' block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of ''America'' and have power over ''living Americans'' for ''four to eight years'', whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding ''world'' religion and have power over ''all living and dead humans'' for ''all of history''. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Comparison with the mainstream==

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them '''non-Christian''' due to theological differences over the [[Trinity]] and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the [[:Category:Christian Denominations]] while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::How much doctrinal difference is allowed from [[traditional Christianity]] before a denomination is considered a [[sect]], a [[heresy]], or *shudder* a [[cult]]? And who decides? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Controversial Material==

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on '''what''' is done, rather '''who''' does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==The removed link==

I'm sure that someone will ask why I removed the link about "Why Protestants agree with Mormons", so I'll quickly explain. The link in question did a very poor job of relating the two theologies, and quite frankly, misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. It's one thing for Mormons to try to show the parallels between themselves and Christians, but we shouldn't misrepresent one another. I do not agree with LDS teachings, but I certainly would not wish to present incorrect info about them. So I simply do not wish for the Christian side to be misunderstood with that link in question. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 23:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You say the link "misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ" but you don't say how it does that. Please explain. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Please use the talk page and wait for the reply before removing an important information. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What? No one has objected. I would be more than happy to talk with anyone about it, but no one has said anything. What's wrong with making a change then letting discussion take place if it is necessary? There may be no need for discussion on this, so I see no reason to sit back and wait. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 12:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What does that link have to do with anything? It links to a site about credit card debt. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

First off, I think that it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with putting up an article that attempts to defend the LDS doctrines. However, it should seek to try and properly explain Protestant beliefs. This article makes several mistakes and misrepresents Protestant theology in many ways. (I ’m not saying that it was in a dishonest way; perhaps it was a mere misunderstanding on the authors part. Nevertheless, there are points that are claimed to be Protestant thought that simply aren’t.

Probably the biggest problem comes under the section “God has a physical body”. Contained within are several misconceptions about the trinity. It states that the Trinity is “three beings of one substance”. This is a glaring error. Trinitarians do not believe that God is three beings. We believe that God is one in being and that within that one being there are three persons. One being, three persons. The distinction is the difference between being and person. A being is what makes something what it is, whereas a person is what makes someone who they are. Everything has being. God is one in being. There is one substance or essence that is the being of God. But that essence is shared by three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Essentially there is one “what” and three “who’s”. So for the author to say that we believe in a God with “three beings” is incorrect.

Following this in the same section is the idea that because Jesus took on physical flesh, that the Father must also have physical flesh as well. The problem is that the Trinity doesn’t work that way. The Father, Son, and Spirit all share one spiritual being. But that doesn’t mean that if one does something then the other two are required to do it as well. Just because the Son took on human flesh doesn’t mean that the Father had to. Trinitarians do not believe that because we see the distinction in the personhood of the Father and the Son. (Note that I said the distinction in personhood, not being.) Following the logic that the author presents, then if the Son were crucified on the cross, then that would mean that the Father was as well. But such is not a Trinitarian idea in the slightest.

In the section “God is a Man”, the Trinity is once again misunderstood and misrepresented. The author claims that because Jesus was born on earth with a physical body then the Trinity would necessitate that the Father be born with one as well. Again I would point out that Trinitarians do not believe that just because the Son does something then the Father would have to do it as well. But secondly, and more importantly, LDS teachings are that the Father was originally a man and that He was exalted to godhood. He was a man who became God. But Protestants believe that God has always been God for all of eternity. The Father never was a man and never will become a man. (In the Protestant view, at least.) And when the Bible uses the term “Father” of the Father God it is referring to either Him in His creator role or to His role as our adoptive Father. (Per Romans 8:15).

Now certainly Protestants and LDS would disagree on a great many of things. But if we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, then we must do our best to represent each other accurately. It is perfectly fine to link to a defense of LDS teachings, but preferably not one that so utterly misrepresents the historical beliefs of Protestants. The Trinity was the major issue at hand here, although to be honest there were many other glaring errors on the authors part. But, to cut to the chase, because Protestant theology has been misrepresented in this way I humbly suggest that the link be removed. Thank you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 07:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Ultima, thank you for your refreshing, sincere, and comprehensive analysis. You have clearly brought out the contrast between what Mormons and Trinitarians believe. Dean and I will incorporate these ideas into the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:*Or you can go ahead and do it, since I'm dawdling so. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:40, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you. I will removed the link then. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:54, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:No, I didn't say you should remove the link. Didn't you notice that I moved it apart from the other links and labeled it controversial? Put it back, and do what I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 29 November 2008 (EST)

::Ed I'm not sure what you want here either. He's pointed out that the link misrepresents the view of the Trinity in traditional Christianity. Are you telling him that he should write a section that discusses the differences between traditional Christianity and the Mormon faith on the concept of the Trinity? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:07, 29 November 2008 (EST)

:::Yes, L.T. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Black dots on a white screen are a severely limited communications format.

:::I want the article to compare and contrast LDS theology with traditional Christian theology, particularly on the [[Trinity]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)

So I originally suggested that the link be removed entirely. I wrote out the explanation above and then explicitly asked that we take down that link. When Ed Poor came along and seemed to approve, I figured he was approving of my suggestion for removal so that's why I took it out. Simply a miscommunication.

Now, I think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to what I was saying. There is nothing wrong with the LDS church attempting to defend their beliefs. That's perfectly fine. There are several other links on this page that do just that, and I have no problems with those. What I do have a problem with is the link in question. Not because it is trying to defend Mormonism, but rather because it is misrepresenting Protestantism while doing so. The assertions made about the Trinity are simply misleading and often very basic errors. (I should point out that there are multiple other mistakes as well, such as the views presented on the trustworthiness of Scripture, the historicity of the Reformation, Jesus and Satan being brothers, etc. But the Trinity was the most obvious and therefore the easiest to utilize in discussion.) I was never arguing that we should incorporate a distinction between Trinitarian and LDS theology (although that's a very good idea). I was simply saying that the link should be removed altogether because it is quite honestly a bad link. Anyone who goes there looking for solid information will not benefit in the slightest.

Consider the implications here for both sides on this particular discussion. For the Protestant, he will see the information that is being presented there and be as dumbfounded as I was. All it will do is cause him to question both the knowledge and the integrity of the author, and because she has purported herself as a representative of the LDS faith, the Mormon church will be viewed with the same degree of doubt. For the Mormon, he will see it and gain a flawed understanding of the Trinity as well as many other Protestant doctrines. Now that’s fine if he is merely going to go to church on Sundays and not worrying about his faith anywhere else. But if he chooses to honor his faith as he believe that he is commanded to do by the spreading the message of his church, then he will be forced to at some point engage with Protestants who know what true Trinitarian belief is. This view of the Trinity can’t stand up against even a basic understanding of Protestants views of Scripture, history, and the like. If this is what young LDS missionaries are taking to the mission fields, then there will be very few Protestants who are converted by this level of misunderstanding.

Therefore, I believe that both sides can see the harm in leaving such an article up as if it were a knowledgeable representation of the facts. In the spirit of respect for one another, I would ask that the link be removed altogether. But, because I do not wish to be accused of any impropriety, I will not do it myself and will leave it for another. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)

:This makes good sense. While we respect the positions of different religious beliefs, it is certainly not our policy to put links that given incorrect information about another religious view. We need to maintain accuracy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:29, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I removed the link and added an appropriate edit comment. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)

==Controversy as Christians?==

There is a section devoted to whether or not Mormons are Christians. However, this issue is not actually adressed in the section. Where is the controversy? Don't they have the words "Church of Jesus Christ" in their name? Oh, wait. That is their name. Where's the controversy?

:That the reference to the controversy has been removed does not mean that it does not exist. And I take it you are not being serious with the name, as if names are voted upon by the greater community for inclusion. If you truly believe a name defines an entity, then you may wish to move to a different Democratic nation -- such as North Korea. While it is not the place of this site to say who is right, that there is a controversy is not a matter of debate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Should we make a chart, showing which major churches have branded other churches as being "non-Christian"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

==History Section==

I started a history section, although it's all about Utah, as the bit about the Church before Utah is in the introduction. I'd like to turn it into a larger history section, hopefully going from the founding up to present day. I'm happy to write about the period from 1847-1890, I'm working off a paper I wrote in college about the "Mormon War" of 1857. My knowledge of the history of the church basically stops with the leaders finally coming out of hiding from federal marshals and issuing the "Manifesto," as this ended the federal government's fight with the Church.

So, I have two requests:

1.) Could someone help out with the history after 1890?

2.) I'm planning on moving the historical bit down from the introduction and into a history section. Could someone suggest an alternate introduction? Or would it be ok to say the same information twice?

I'm also going to source all the facts I put in the section, but it's 12:10 and time for bed now. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 00:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Removing Section on Splinter Groups ==

Hey, I'm just curious why the section mentioning the splinter sects was removed. I realize they're not the official church, and hotly denounced by the official church (I was raised Mormon). Wouldn't it be a valuable source to people to be aware of these splinter groups and their relation to the main church in the main article? There are many misconceptions about the LDS church which that could help clarify. Many people think the splinter groups are directly part of the mainstream LDS church. [[User:PeytonJ|PeytonJ]] 14:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:Links to splinter groups sounds like a good idea. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:46, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:An unauthorized group is exactly that. It deserves no credibility, and has no connection with, the main group. An entry on an unauthorized group, but there is no reason to connect it with a group that disavows it. Make sense?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::What you say makes sense, but I disagree. Explaining the lack of connection is important to make the existence of splinter groups known so that they are -not- confused with the real thing. As is it leaves the interpretation very open to error. [[User:PeytonJ|PeytonJ]] 15:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I agree. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:The only "connection" I had in mind is the sectarian one. If a tiny group splits off from its main body, they would no longer be related, of course. But perhaps if we make a detailed enough history of the LDS, we might mention some of its offshoots - taking pains to describe how the sects differ from the mainstream.

:I would hesitate to do this, if it would backfire editorially. That is, if people would pounce on the 'link' and misuse it to claim a closer relationship than what was really there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::I agree with Mr. Poor. Adding links to splinter groups sounds like it could become a ''sub silento'' way of tying Mormons to extremists who share nothing with the real church.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Negroes==

In my own church, I have encountered racists. (Don't worry, they won't punish me for revealing this! ;-) Many unenlightened Asian members openly despise blacks. Our church is only 54 years old, and it takes time for bad attitudes to change. Would that "being saved" would eradicate our [[fallen nature]] in an instant. (It seems not to have that effect in [[Colonial America]], and even the [[US Civil War]] did not eradicate the lingering traces.)

Anyway, the idea that Negroes are under the "[[curse of Ham]]" has been peddled to me more than once by Japanese churchwomen, and quoting to them from our Founder's sermons seems to have had little effect on their desire to cling to this notion. Does this mean the [[Unification Church]] is racist? No. It means that the church is a hospital for sinners. You don't have to be "healthy" to join. Giving up sin takes time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Polygamy ==

Periodically criticism of Mormons concerning long-ago polygamy is inserted into this entry, but we're not going to allow liberal bias against Mormons here. Should we bash [[FDR]] for having the equivalent of two wives first???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
::polygamy was a core Mormon belief and a requirement to be a Mormon leader before 1890. If Conservapedia doesn't tell the facts on how the Church rejected polygamy then some readers will harbor seriously mistaken views about Mormons (as Romney discovered last year). Indeed many religious conservatives today have a very negative view of Mormons. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:50, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

::: For the vast majority of its existence this Church has rejected polygamy. The smear of Romney and the other editorializing have been removed. Now how about featuring in the entry on [[FDR]] how he maintained the equivalent of two wives?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
::::what we have is a very strong anti-Mormon sentiment among fundamentalists and evangelicals--CP's readership base. They tell horror stories about polygamy and if CP ignores the issue it will be that much worse for the Mormons. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:55, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: We're not ignoring the issue, but we're not going to exaggerate liberal smears either. The entry should remain factual and not exaggerate an issue as liberals want. The opposition by some evangelicals to this Church has nothing to do with polygamy, by the way.

::::: Why aren't you just as concerned about writing about [[FDR]]'s de facto polygamy, which occurred decades after this Church banned it for its members?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Actually I'm the CP editor that did write about FDR's love affairs. see [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]. While FDR won the votes of most Mormons he had rather little to do with them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: But why aren't you writing about polygamy in ''[[FDR]]'''s own entry? That is far more recent and significant than any polygamy by the LDS Church.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Polygamy is official marriage. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had 40-50 official wives each, and other top officials had dozens. The issue came to a head in 1904-5 in the US Senate, with the conservative Protestants leading the battle that forced the Mormons to condemn polygamy. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::Your history on this issue is wrong RJJensen. "In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church." [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____].
::::::Under "Additional Information" it says "Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide." --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: RJJensen, the witchhunt in 1904-05 had nothing to do with "official" marriage, but with allegations of "unofficial" polygamy, of which many prominent non-Mormons have been guilty in more recent times. Moreover, the claim that "conservative Protestants" led the 1904-05 Senate hearings (which were a failure, by the way) is unsupported. It seems much of the motivation of those hearings was to deny a seat to the Republican Smoot, and to resist the migration of Mormons from the Democratic to the Republican Party. That said, thanks for bringing this embarrassing episode of Senate history to our attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:46, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::well I have looked at the record, and I can assert that conservative Protestants --including every faction of the Presbyterian denomination, which took the lead--were very hostile to Mormons in 1904. Most of the ministers were Republican and they demanded the Senate take action against a Republican (Smoot). Three reasons dominated: whether the Mormons practiced Polygamy, theocracy and Christianity. The top Mormon leaders had multiple wives from official marriages--not unofficial mariages or comcubines or mistresses. (Smoot had only one wife and was seated). Mormon leaders realized the dilemma and forced the explusion after 1904 of outspoken polygamists, but they did not give up their own multiple wives. That is, they tolerated quiet polygamous mariages that had already started but did not allow any new ones. The last official polygamist --a widow--was a young woman in 1904 and died in the 1970s--not so long ago. Several leading Mormons were forced out of the leadership on the polygamy issue, and a faction broke off and still exists that practices polygamy. Theocracy was a somewhat different issue, which the Mormons resolved by splitting Mormon men into Republicans and Democratics, so there would be genuine competition in state politics. As for Christianity that still is a lively issue as the 2008 GOP primary suggests.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:34, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I don't doubt that the Senate opponents of the LDS Church were Protestant. Virtually ''all'' congressmen then were Protestant. But the protagonists of Smoot included Democrats, which is not typically known for being conservative. Moreover, the witchhunt was politically motivated and little to do with genuine opposition to polygamy. Smoot, as you concede, was not even a polygamist.

::: Some Protestants do oppose the LDS Church for reasons other than polygamy. But that is even more reason not to exaggerate the polygamy issue. Let's not make the same mistake the Senate did in 1904-05, exaggerating the polygamy issue when no one genuinely cares about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

*1 Corinthians 1:10-25 (NIV) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Lock ==

Why exactly is this page locked to all users except for administrators? I did want to fix an issue with the article: the beginning paragraph states that the church has 12,800 "temples". I'm vaguely familiar with the LDS church, and they certainly do not have 12K temples....they probably mean that they have 12800 '''churches'''. Regardless...is there some sort of reason as to why this page is fully protected? [[User:RichardSears|RichardSears]] 00:38, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*It is locked because far too many people who were only "vaguely familiar" with the subject attempted to edit without regard to the facts. [[File:Hysterically laughing.gif]]

As is normal, users who cannot access a page, are certainly free to ask any Administrator to open it, or leave their suggested changes on this talk page.--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:10, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:* I meant that I am familiar with the LDS church (having family who are part of it and having read a decent amount about the church) but not an expert on the topic. I would guess that the individuals that wrote the article are probably more or less on the same level of knowledge as me. Being arrogant like that doesn't help either. According to [http://www.lds.org/temples/chronological/0,11206,1900-1,00.html] the church has '''128''' temples, not '''12800'''. [[User:RichardSears|RichardSears]] 17:08, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

==Deity of Christ==
This article states,"Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in the deity of Christ." I do not think that is true. Well, it is and it is not. Mormons believe in a trinity of three completely separate Gods. God the Father is Elohim, he is the chief God of Mormonism, he is the entity that they worship. The Holy Ghost and Jesus are considered lesser Gods, and I believe that they are not actually worshipped by Mormons. From my understanding, the statement that Mormons believe in Christ's deity is misleading at the very least. Bill Keller is a Christian pastor in Florida who I know is very extreme and I would not endorse his religious views or his bigotry against Mormons, but he has said Mormons reject the divinity of Jesus. "The 'god' of the Mormon cult used to be a human who rose to god-like status, just like Beck and all Mormons believe they will too after their death. The 'jesus' of the Mormon cult is the natural offspring of their 'god' Elohim who had sex with Mary, meaning their jesus is a created being and NOT a deity as the Bible teaches, and is the brother of Lucifer."[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8322914324.html] I think he was correct about that topic. Also this source, "While Mormons claim to believe in the deity of Christ, we have already observed that they do not believe in the true 'deity of deity'; for the Mormon, God and man are of the same species. Consequently at the end of the day Jesus, and even God the Father for that matter is but an exalted man different from us [i.e. human mortals] in degree but not in kind." The Deity of Christ
edited by Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson page 247 [https://books.google.com/books?id=smwTbxjowTwC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=Mormons+do+not+believe+in+Christ%27s+deity&source=bl&ots=U8mT-t0s9v&sig=wgRiNkDWZvGwT-1A89gCPGzVHSg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P1FRVbSXMsvWoASjj4DADA&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Mormons%20do%20not%20believe%20in%20Christ's%20deity&f=false] [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:11, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Freemasonry

2015-07-12T07:06:10Z

Burke39: I've been told the two dashes in my signature look peciliar, so I'm removing them. There's no reason for them.

Frankly, most of this info is bunk. It goes on weird, irrelevant tangents, and is biased.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps at one point but as it stands now it is quite concise and to the point, and might I add the most fair and informative article I've seen on Freemasonry on the internet in a long time.
[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm no, I've changed my mind. It's rather skimpy to be certain.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Still though it's nice to see it not being trashed.
no mention is made in this article that freemasonry is regarded as an anti-christian organisation. john thurloe 31 10 08
:Probably because it generally ISN'T regarded as an anti-Christian organisation, except by a lunatic fringe, and there's no reason whatsoever that it should be. Nothing in Freemasonry is contrary to the teachings of Christianity. The Swedish Rite is ONLY open to christians. The book on the altar may be referred to as the Volume of the Sacred Law, but in most Lodges it's a King James Bible. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 11:05, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'm not really religious, but I believe most Christian churches oppose Freemasonry. However, this is an encyclopedia, so I don't know that that should be focused on to much in the article. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
==History==
"In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.
When Adolf Hitler came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in Germany." That seems like a very brief history that excludes a lot of important information.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:55, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
::::"(However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)" That is not the view of mainstream historians of Freemasonry, whether Freemasons or not. That is the view of some people who it could be kindly said had a loose hold on reality. People like Freemason Manly Hall or anti-Freemason David Icke. Its not a view held by the majority of scholars of Freemasonry, whether pro-Masonic, anti-Masonic, or neutral. Also, I don't know about here, but on wikipedia saying "some people claim X" is considered weasel words, because its not specific. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:58, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-07-12T07:03:37Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */ Removing my dashes,only because on website another user expressed her view that the dashes were odd.

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:52, 1 January 2010 (EST)}}

== re: Atheism article ==

If you want to replace the bare link footnotes of the [[Atheism]] article with more descriptive non-bare links, that would be most welcome. I am involved in some major projects right now and I am pressed for time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll do some more then. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:01, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
::Thanks. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
:::Thank you again for all your work on the atheism article. It's appearance looks noticeably better plus it is more informative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:43, 15 January 2015 (EST)
::You're welcome. I also like the article and appreciate all the research you've done for it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:47, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks. I don't think I would do the research again. Atheism is a rather stale topic and its prospects in terms of adherents [[Global atheism|looks poor]] in the 21st century. I agree with [[John Updike]] who said, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position." If I knew the [[New Atheism]] was just a fad, I wouldn't have bothered. In hindsight, it has a lot of indicators that it was merely a fad.

:::My research had a ''The Bridge on the River Kwai''/Gestalt principle like element to it. Once I started the task, I wanted to finish it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 15 January 2015 (EST)

::::You gathered in one place a lot of supporting evidence that otherwise would have been scattered all over the internet and of limited use. I think you deserve a kudos for that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::::I did put a fly in the evangelical/militant atheist soup by putting this evidence together in one place. And a good [[Christian apologetics]] team has both an offense/defense (Saying why other worldviews are wrong and why Christianity is correct). So some good came out of it. But there is the issue of the [[opportunity cost]]. I could have used the time to advance other causes (Christian evangelism, anti-slavery efforts, anti-poverty efforts, etc. etc.). If you look [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE]and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=GB&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=AU&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and at the [[global atheism]] article, it does seem like atheism is losing steam in the world, the US, the UK and Australia in recent years.

:::::Part of this downward trend is due to Christian efforts and a lot of it is due to atheists shooting themselves in the foot through their ill behavior and infighting (see: [[Atheist movement]] and [[Elevatorgate]]). In addition, the more we know about the physical world and about the nature of man, the less plausible atheism is. In addition, the atheist community has largely [[Atheism and politics|allied itself with the left end of the political spectrum]] and in recent years, the left has not fared very well. And high sovereign debt around the world in developed countries, makes the left's prospects dimmer. Austerity measures are often not something a country chooses. It is something that is forced upon them. And austerity measures and leftism are not a good match. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I just noticed something. If you look at those graphs, you will see that upward part of the graphs correlate with the rise of [[New Atheism]] and the political left (Obama, etc. etc.), but the descent of the graphs is correlated with the fall of the [[New Atheism]] and the political left losing favor. I didn't notice the political aspect until just now. Christendom has a higher degree of diversity in terms of politics due to its high geographic diversity. Like I am politically to the right within the multiple Christian editors of User: Conservate-ism and politically to the right of former admin Philip Rayment for example. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 January 2015 (EST)

== Great job and small request ==

You are doing a superb job as far as the atheism footnotes.

I have a small request as far as the atheism article footnotes. For various reasons, I try to keep all the links on the page highly relevant. Like all the links going to the specific source pages. So if you could avoid the links going to the home pages of the news websites (or other websites), I would appreciate it.

The article is going to look fantastic when the footnoting is finished and it will be more helpful to readers as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll compress them if you like. Thanks for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:40, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
::OK, I just compressed one. The footnote to the Marxism website. You can see what I did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

== re: two other articles ==

After you finish footnoting the atheism article, consider footnoting the [[evolution]] and [[homosexuality]] articles because those articles are popular articles too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:05, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

== footnotes - atheism article ==

The only reason I changed one of the footnotes in the article is because I found a better source. Your footnoting is excellent and makes the article more user friendly which is important. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you, I was just about to ask you about that change. And thank you for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:33, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
::The [[Evolution]] article is probably the most popular article on this website. And the topic is related to atheism too. Would you like to do the footnoting for the evolution article too? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
:::That one is very long. I would prefer to work on some of the smaller "Liberal characteristics and traits" articles first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:01, 29 July 2014 (EDT)
::::OK. There is an article which has under 50 footnotes and over 1,000,000 page views. The [[liberal]] article. This would be an excellent candidate to do better footnoting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

== spammer on the loose ==

See Recent changes at 23:52. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:16, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::I'm [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AVargasMilan&year=&month=-1| pretty sure you do have blocking powers]. Did Andy not congratulate you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:32, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::We now have confirmation direct from Andy. It's on [[User_talk:SamHB | my talk page]]. Go have a look. He appreciates your work. (As do I.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:01, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

== News maybe? ==
I found this article on cracked.com mentioning 6 studies that proves that not all fields of science are trustworthy and that some scientists will do what they can to get more funds for their "research". I'm not 100% sure if it's trustworthy, but maybe after proofreading it you guys could use this in your news or global warming article somewhere. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:20, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

:Thanks, I'll look into it. But how do you think we would look linking to ''Cracked'' on the front page? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:25, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

::I guess I understand, but its rare to see a usually liberal/gray site admit something like this. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:28, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

:::They also did a piece something like "10 things you didn't know about life behind the iron curtain" featuring a writer who lived in Romania. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
::::I suggest you be vigilant with the main page as some may try to vandalize it with crude drawings using this "hidden" graffiti program -> http://dudl.me/ Vandals use it all the time on major sites. -[[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 16:54, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

== If you like doing administrative tasks ==

If you like doing administrative tasks, there are a lot of orphan pages that need to be linked to from other pages. You can find the list of them here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=0 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:14, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
::I started the work by deorphanizing the [[African Burial Ground]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:23, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

== Relativity ==

Thanks for calling that missing counterexample to my attention, and thereby (that means "because of what preceded" :-) keeping the numbering consistent. I'll get on it when I have the time. It will be a fairly straightforward one. In fact, there have been very few truly original "counterexamples" lately. I will try to eschew sesquipedalian expressions, and generally avoid "a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind" :-) Though such disdain is often hard to avoid on that page :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:13, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's a lot to be said for self-confidence I suppose. Have at it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:09, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

== another spammer on the loose ==

Check RC. I'm sure you would have noticed it pretty soon. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:30, 30 November 2014 (EST)
:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 15:40, 30 November 2014 (EST)

== No hard feelings, I hope? ==

I really do respect you. And I see that, with your recent edits to the National debt, along with many other things, you really are a subject matter expert, and willing to use that expertise. There are a lot of people that just fix punctuation and stuff, in what appears to be just an attempt to curry favor.

Now if I could just figure out what "withering patrician disdain" means!

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:Do a search of the phrase in Conservapedia! It's one of Conservative's favorite quotes. You'll see who the original missive was ''actually'' aimed at without the substitution of your name. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)

::My goodness, you're right! I hadn't thought of that. Amazing. The way so much of his <s>garbage</s> writing is. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 1 December 2014 (EST)

== Proper use of mainpage talk ==

OK, I'm going to follow your example, and try to get people to use main talk for discussion of the main page content only, and the community portal for general discussion, flaming, arguing, etc. We'll see how that goes. Maybe people are just too set in their ways, and they'll go back to the old way.

By the way, I have a vague recollection of someone fixing the lose vs. loose error recently, and I think it was you. If so, thank you. I fear that I am loosing my mind over this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:31, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:The switch over to the community portal seems to be going extremely well. I'm pleased that something I did is already getting people to use the right page. By the way, at the very bottom you will see a note by me about a user ("TheonlySIL", or whatever) that really, really, really desires to be blocked. Just sayin' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Project ==

Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#A_project_for_active_editors_to_collaborate_on The collaborative project]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:04, 25 December 2014 (EST)
==Survivalblog==
Thank you for your edits. Don't you think that this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Survival_Blog&curid=132924&diff=1131585&oldid=1131584] was rather rambling to the point of distracting the reader from what we are trying to say? Could you please consider rewriting it for clarity? I think the reader can get the idea without a parody of the blog's writing style. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Your edit improves things. It would be my preference to have moved the discussion to a general overview article like [[Survivalism]] and the long quote to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], but I am dropping my concerns. Again, many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:53, 13 January 2015 (EST)

== Conservative vouched for this person. ==

Could you give me a link to this? Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:50, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:They edited together consecutively within the space of one or two minutes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 14 January 2015 (EST)

::Sorry, I didn't know that ''not objecting to'' means ''vouching for''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you ==

I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:20, 21 March 2015 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to make it easier for you to revert edits, and also for you to have night editing. Congratulation!

:Thank you, Andy! I appreciate it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:57, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

== Fixed typo on main page ==

I fixed the typo on the main page. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:20, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== I don't understand ... ==

Why do you keep reverting my edits to the Obama and Unemployment page? We all know that unemployment has fallen (albeit with a lowering workforce participation), why shouldn't the article reflect that?

== I updated the Barack Obama and United States Unemployment article ==

I updated the [[Barack Obama and United States Unemployment]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

== I just sent you an email ==

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

:Thanks for the welcome. I sent you a reply regarding what you said in your e-mail. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a followup email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thank you. I will check into those to see if there's anything I've missed from my own research. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:40, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a final email to tie things up as far as our recent discussions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:24, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

==Inserting false information==
When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Well the CNN article was one. I just remember there being a number of problems. I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.

:When you asked about edits to the LDS article, I thought you were referring to the talk page, but in the article you made a mistake there too that I noted in the edit summary. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:29, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

::But thank you for your positive contributions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:You were behaving like a liberal spammer. The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.
:As for the comment, I'd just be speculating. It was User:Conservative who said it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization. Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag. Beginning with Havelock Ellis. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Christian Science==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Soviet Union ==

The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Re: Atheism and intolerance ==

If you want to review the article [[Atheism and intolerance]] and fix any grammatical/formatting errors, it would be appreciated.

More work on the footnoting of the article is going to be done by the [[User: Conservative]] account this coming weekend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks for the work you did so far on the article. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:16, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I did some more footnoting for the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 03:54, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Thanks for footnoting the entire article. Your assistance is much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:01, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

==Thanks==
for showing me (by example in the Ronald Reagan page) how to group multiple references together. Our little dust-up over the number 111 would not have happened if I had read them all. Sorry about that. Be that as it may, I'm using that technique in the Robert Dicke page. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:17, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
:You're welcome. There's a tutorial page on Conservapedia that I learned it from, but I don't where that page is now. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:15, 21 May 2015 (EDT)
::You also have the problem of not being able to find your way around the help pages? I can never find the really tricky things. I know how to use square brackets and double single quotes and stuff, but I can never remember complicated things like footnotes and tables, so I usually try to find a page that has it, and copy it. So, I've been using a page of handwritten notes. I finally typed it in. It's [[How_to_put_links_and_footnotes_into_your_articles]]. Enjoy. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:03, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc^2 ==

The reason I called your edit malicious is that it is not true that I was just sneaking in previous material. I rewrote the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph ''yet again''. Your edit comment said that I was just doing the same thing again. I wasn't. You need to read edits before you just blindly revert them. The same thing goes for your earlier reversion, when you put a redundant pair of sentences ''back in''. You need to pay attention. Many aspects of your recent behavior suggest that you are allowing some kind of personal vendetta to negatively impact your contributions to CP.

So now let's go through the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph paragraph in detail:

::"In 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton ...."

Do you dispute their nationality? Do you dispute that it was a nuclear transmutation? Do you dispute that it was the first? Do you dispute that they won the Nobel Prize for it?

::"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei ...."

Do you dispute that the Nobel announcement said that?

::"This experiment is replicated ... hundreds of times each year."

(That comment, in fact almost all of this paragraph was written by AugustO, as part of his battle with Andy, not by me. AugustO and I have been fighting over this in email.)

Do you dispute that the experiment is frequently replicated?

::"Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ....."

(This is the thing I was specifically trying to clarify) Do you dispute that verifying E=mc^2 was the not the goal of either the experiment or the Nobel Committee?

::"... the equation had already been known and understood for many years ..."

Do you dispute that? Atomic weights and mass defects ("packing fractions") had been known since the early 30's. Do you dispute that? Can you explain, in your own words, how the awareness of atomic weights and mass defects evolved in the early decades of the 20th century?

::"analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation."

Do you dispute that? Did you read AugustO's explanation? Have you looked at a table of atomic weights?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

:You accuse ''me'' of being malicious and destructive? You suddenly level accusations of negligence on my part and just as suddenly declare the accusations to be settled. Is that how carelessly you treat the truths of science as well?

:Here's another example: AugustO and Andy are discussing the nature of the verification of the equation. Andy says "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?" Then you rush in all of a sudden to make sure that there is a statement in the article that insists the equation is already "verified"—while the meaning of that verification is simulataneously being discussed! Is that how you treat the truths of science, by judging the ones to be true as those belonging to whomever can cram in their assertions first?

:Here's a third example: Once you can't cram in your assertions the first, you label my actions malicious and destructive as if I were harming the article, but really I'm just harming your ability to gain the upper hand. You immediately turn and chop the statement I was objecting to into pieces in fatuous eagerness to pursue an effort to pick my brain to see where you can gain the advantage against Andy in other ways. Is that how you treat the truths of science, that that science should be whatever is left over after one person carries out an effort to argumentively overpower another and that might makes right science? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

== sent you an email ==

I sent you an email. Please check your email.

== Spacetime, and curvature thereof. ==

OK, accept your latest version. In fact, I just made an edit that made no change at all to the article, but had the edit comment "I accept that. So we're OK, right?". But the oh-so-smart wiki software apparently drops any edit that makes no changes to the text. So I'm telling you here.

Peace. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:04, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

== re: Militant atheism article ==

VargasMilan,

Could you please condense the amount of footnotes appearing the first paragraph of the article [[militant atheism]]. Like the first sentence ends in 6 footnotes which looks horrible. That is too many and is distracting. I know there is a way to have the same number of footnotes appearing at the bottom, but just have the number of footnotes appearing in the text be less. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

:That looks like an interesting article. Are you going to promote it soon? If it is urgent I can do some work on it, but I am actually on vacation until Tuesday. Don't hesitate to respond via e-mail if you need to and take care. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:32, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
::It is not urgent and can wait until Tuesday. It is a nice article. At this time, I have some things to attend to so I don't have any plans to promote the article soon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:33, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
:::Don't forget about tidying up the opening sentence of [[militant atheism]] so it doesn't appear as if there are 6 footnotes for that sentence in the text for that sentence. You can have 6 footnotes show up after someone clicks the footnote, but I don't want so many footnotes appearing in the sentence when you first read it. Thanks again for all your assistance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
Actually, I just want the footnoting for the first sentence of the article [[militant atheism]] fixed so it appears as if there are 1-3 footnotes at first glance. Of course, once they click a footnote, it can consist of more than one footnote at the bottom of the page.

You can keep the rest of the footnoting of the article the same. Just fix the first sentence.

Again, thanks for all your assistance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
:Is the footnoting formatting fix for the first sentence of the [[militant atheism]] article an easy fix or is the authors frequent use of a lot of text in his footnotes a big problem as far as fixing the footnoting.

:I think 6 footnotes appearing in the text for one sentence is excessive so I want to hide them in the bottom of the page. Ideally, I would want 1-3 footnotes appearing in the body of the text for the first sentence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:48, 5 July 2015 (EDT)

::They get recombined with later footnotes, and these later footnotes get connected with still later footnotes, so they and the later footnotes need to be duplicated. I am trying what I think is the fastest way, and that is to work from the bottom up. This isn't some obscure article; it was obviously very well documented by you and others, so I'm sure the effort has high enough priority to be well worth while. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:04, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

::I'm halfway through; it should take three and a half hours at the very most. I'll be able to spend a few hours on them tonight and two hours tomorrow night to take care of whatever's left. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:13, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
:::OK. The only reason I want this done is have the first sentence appear as if it has 1 to 3 footnotes. 6 footnotes in the key first sentence does not look attractive. It is OK if those same 6 footnotes appear on the bottom though. For cosmetic reasons, I just want it to be appear as if 1-3 footnotes as far as the first sentence text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:45, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

Hello User:VargasMilan, I am the main author of the [[militant atheism]] article and I appreciate your efforts to improve the formatting of the article. In the style that I wrote the article, because some of my references were used throughout the article, one could simply go to the references section and see all the specific locations in the article where one reference was being used. I am concerned that one may no longer be able to do this with your new formatting. I am okay with User:Conservative's wish to have references combined only in the introduction of the article. However, in the rest of the article, I think it would be best to have the original formatting restored, so that individuals will be able to locate all the places where one reference is being used. What are your thoughts? With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 17:15, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

:I was following [[Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Avoid_multiple_footnotes._Put_all_sources_into_a_single_note.]] which is a link on the Conservapedia Manual of Style page. I don't think I should have to change them back unless there is an error in the Manual of Style. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:49, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

== Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015 and then another one in August ==

Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015. And then another one in August of 2015. It is going to be a TERRIBLE summer for atheism this year. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

:I look forward to seeing them. I hope they will be on more tasteful subjects than bestiality and of more far-reaching significance than something Richard Dawkins said in an elevator. Otherwise, I doubt that they will contribute to it being a terrible summer for atheism. I can't imagine someone accepting Christianity because of someone's crude remark in an elevator. You really can do better than that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
::SamHB, it wouldn't surprise me if you were an atheist and if you edited another wiki whose editors are often obsessed with me.

::''This discussion has strayed off topic and has been moved to [[User_talk:SamHB#Another_atheism_article_is_coming_out_probably_in_July_0f_2015_and_then_another_one_in_August]]''
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:02, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

== Militant atheism and red links in footnotes ==

I have a dozen plus projects that I have to tackle as soon as possible, but I did make a lot of progress in terms of "dered" linking the red links in the [[militant atheism]] footnotes.

If you could finish the "dered" linking the footnotes, the footnotes are good enough at this point. I just wanted to make this excellent article look more visually appealing.

And thanks for all the help you did so far. Much appreciated. I am sure the main author of this article will be very pleased with the assistance you provided. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:03, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

:You're welcome. Just remove the brackets? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:04, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Yes, just remove the brackets. Once the red links are gone, the article will look fantastic. Red links are an eyesore and detract from the appearance an article. I think they should be created only if the editor knows they will be filled in soon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:15, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

== Militant atheism remaining work ==

I largely fixed all the red links in the footnotes.

Second, using a dead link checker (see: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/linkchecker/ or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/check-my-links/ojkcdipcgfaekbeaelaapakgnjflfglf?hl=en-GB ), I found that footnotes 3,44,66,67,85,90,119 and 124 have some dead link issues.

If you could replace the dead links with live links, it would be appreciated.

Thanks for all your assistance so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks for all your work on the militant atheism article.

::There are still a few red links and they are associated with dates. If you know how to get rid of the handful of red links remaining, it would be appreciated.

::I am hoping we get the article in perfect shape this month. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:28, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

== re: final steps for militant atheism article ==

The main author of the militant atheism article is going to work on the article some more later this month. He likes a lot of the stuff we did.

He put a lot of work into the article and is kind of particular about the article.

Thanks for all your help. And he thanks you as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:58, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

User talk:Burke39

2015-07-12T07:02:08Z

Burke39: /* Rudolf Freiherr von Sebottendorff */ Fixed formatting.

User talk:Burke39

2015-07-12T07:01:44Z

Burke39: There's no reason for the two dashes in my signature, I didn't know how to avoid them in the past, now I do.

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:56, 10 November 2011 (EST)}}

==Age of consent/Pedophilia==

Burke, you moved a large section from one article to another article, then said it didn't belong in the second article either. Are you going to put it somewhere else?

== [[Rudolf Freiherr von Sebottendorff]] ==

Burke, how could the founder of a "Worker's party" be regarded as right-wing? And what offices did this "politician" hold? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:34, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
I took out the reference to the right-wing, and replaced "politician" with "political activist". Is that better?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:37, 12 March 2015 (EDT)

== Restriction ==
You're getting another chance, but you're not allowed to edit articles or content on human sexuality. Those are Conservapedia's administration's orders. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:15, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Ok, I understand. Is that a permanent restriction or a temporary one? I mean if I agree to change what the problems were can I edit them?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:17, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

It's permanent as for now. If you show good behavior as a regular contributor, you may have success in appealing that decision. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:34, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Its just that I'm not sure that my contributions in that topic were any worse than in other areas. Why is that specific area being singled out? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:44, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:I think it's because you sort of have to be an expert to discuss these matters conservatively, and you have been shown in general to have made a lot of mistakes in presenting facts enyclopedically. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:54, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::By "discuss these matters conservatively" do you mean from a conservative political viewpoint, or do you mean with caution in order to avoid making mistakes? [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 21:56, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:Conservative in style and substance. They can both involve each other. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:02, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:::I remember reading on your talk page somebody stating that "he maxed out his creepy/bizarre/liberal sex topic quota". So I thought maybe it was because of some kind of bias that they felt my editing contained. I'm actually a conservative politically, and although I don't think conversion therapy works in most cases, I don't agree with the homosexual "rights" movement and I'm against pedophilia. The only reason I took out the Kinsey comment about the adult-child thing was that it was sourced to a dead link, I didn't necessarily disagree with it. I'm against the ideas of people like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey who wanted to destroy morality. Also, in the ephebophilia article when I put the mental health practitioners did not consider it a mental problem, I wasn't saying that acting on attractions like that would be a good idea, I was just saying that the sources don't consider it a perversion the way pedophilia is considered a perversion because people in adolescence have adult bodies, that is what the reliable sources say for the most part in psychiatry. I understand I have to abide by the restriction even though I do not agree with it though.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Wait, another thing. Does the topic ban on sexuality only applies to articles specifically about sexuality, or does it also apply to sex when it comes up in other articles. For example, [[Nelson Rockefeller]] died during or shortly after sexual intercourse with a woman who worked for him, and he lost his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 because he divorced his wife to marry another woman he had been committing adultery with, and he also had sex with a lot of other women he was not married to, so in an article about him the topic of sex would come up. And in a lot of articles about other famous people like [[Bill Clinton]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Roman Polanski]], accusations (whether true or false) of sexual misconduct come up. Am I banned from editing parts of articles about people that relate to their sexual lives or to sexual accusations against them, or just from articles specifically about sexuality?[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:36, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
::::If I were you, I'd give the whole topic a rest. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I'm just asking if the ban extends to those areas. That's my final question on it. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::It would make it look like you were trying to dodge the ban, so yes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:18, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Is there anything wrong with my recent edits to other topics ==
I put some edits in the Mormonism article because it seemed like the article was saying Mormonism is Christian, and its not. I'm not a particularly religious person so I don't have a dog in that fight, but Mormonism is completely different from Christianity. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 22:06, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

:I checked those edits and found nothing offensive. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:21, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

== Your block ==

The cat picture in the Russia article was added by user:Conservative (generally known as "Cons") at 10:03, 2 Nov. 2011.

I do not know what to make of the statement that your "topic ban" on sex articles was issued by that person. In fact, I can see no evidence that anyone ever issued any kind of "topic ban" against you. Other than a reference to it having been done, by the administration, in a note by VargasMilan at 21:15, 11 May 2015. Cons is an administrator, and he may have issued that topic ban, but I can find no evidence of it. Nor do I know what the reference to the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" was about. The only references to that phrase that I can find are on your talk page, by you, at 22:06, 11 May 2015, and on VM's talk page, by you, at 00:53, 12 May 2015.

But I would recommend that, when you come back, you stay away from articles about anything related to sex. This is a subject area in which admins and sysops are particularly sensitive, rightly or wrongly, to the possibility of vandalism or parody. Even though you disagree completely, and think you have been treated unfairly, stay away.

About the cat picture: I fully agree that the cat picture isn't right for a section on Russian geography. Cons puts in lots of fanciful pictures, including cats, but they are almost always in his fanciful articles, where people expect that. It doesn't belong in the Russian geography section. I think a much better picture would be a vast plain with the Ural Mountains rising in the background. As in the ''Doctor Zhivago'' movie. I'd scrounge up a suitable picture myself, but I don't have upload rights. I see that Cons recently changed it to a picture of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, which is fine, but not in the geography section. And the same picture is in the next section. By the way, I think edits relating to Russia and the USSR are a fine topic for you, and you seem to be knowledgeable about it.

As far as "inserting false information" or "trolling", I've seen no evidence of it, though I haven't looked through your extensive edits (244) over the last few months. Surviving at Conservapedia often involves staying away from people, and staying away from topics that set off their "troll detectors", whether you agree with them or not.

If you have anything you wish to say, or questions you wish to ask, contact me, as per [[User:SamHB|the top of my user page]]. I'll see what I can do.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:52, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

:Postscript --- @Cons: What happened to your Murmansk picture? Copyright problem? Please find another one. Preferably the Urals, or the Kamchatka volcano or whatever it is. Please upload something; I'm counting on you.

:Also, it would be nice if you could rescind Burke39's block. You have the authority to do it.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:38, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:25:41Z

Burke39: /* Soviet Union */

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:22:03Z

Burke39: /* Soviet Union */

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:19:06Z

Burke39: /* Soviet Union */

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:13:18Z

Burke39: /* Christian Science */ Response on Christian Science

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2015-05-12T06:10:47Z

Burke39: I changed my mind going to be boldwon't edit war if somebody restores the photo but seems bizarre/off topic to me There were the same cats before and after the USSR in the region

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Soviet Union''' (Russian: Советский Союз, ''Sovyetskiy Soyuz''), formally the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' (or '''USSR''') (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, ''Soyuz Sovietskykh Sotsialisticheskykh Respublik'', abbreviated ''СССР'') existed 1922-1991<ref>[http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-established/ This Day in History USSR Established 1922]</ref>, then broke into 15 separate countries, most notably [[Russia]]. It was the most powerful established [[socialist]] state in history, coming to power under [[Lenin]] in 1918 and killing millions of its citizens to establish a ruthless Communist dictatorship under [[Joseph Stalin]] in the 1930s. After cooperating with the USSR (1939-41), the Nazi Germans under [[Adolf Hitler]] invaded in a war to the death. The USSR defeated the Nazis in [[World War II]] (1941-45), and took control of most of [[Central Europe]], turning formerly independent countries into Communist satellite states. It was the primary antagonist of the United States during the [[Cold War]] (1947-1989); it then collapsed because of American pressure and its own internal economic and social failures. At its height the USSR covered one-sixth of the earth's land area, stretching from [[Central Europe]] across [[Eastern Europe]] and northern Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Although Russia and most of Soviet republics are [[Western world]] countries, during the Soviet period, a war was declared on Christianity, the country wanted to cut its Western roots and create a brand new civilisation, a communist utopia.

==Geography==

Located in the middle and northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union's 22.4 million square kilometers included one-sixth of the earth's usable land area. Its western portion (European part of Russia), more than half of all European landmass, made up 25% of Russia's total area. European part of Russia (European Russia), however, was where 72% of the people lived and where most industrial and agricultural activities were concentrated. The largest region was the lightly populated [[Siberia]], a land between the Urals and the Pacific that for centuries was infamous as a place of exile, a land of endless expanses of snow and frigid temperatures.

Extending for over 60,000 kilometers, the Soviet border was the world's longest national frontier, sharing a common border with twelve countries, six on each continent. In Asia, its neighbors were the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] (North Korea), [[China]], [[Mongolia]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]]; in [[Europe]], it bordered [[Romania]], [[Hungary]], [[Czechoslovakia]] (now [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]]), [[Poland]], [[Norway]], and [[Finland]].

Approximately two-thirds of the frontier was bounded by water, forming the longest and, owing to its proximity to the North Pole, probably the most useless coastline of any country. Apart from Murmansk, which receives the warm currents of the Gulf Stream, the northern coast is locked in ice much of the year. The search for a warm water port was a central theme throughout Russian history.

A dozen seas, part of the water systems of three oceans--the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific--washed over Soviet shores.
*Size: Approximately 22,402,200 square kilometers (land area 22, 272,000 square kilometers); slightly less than 2.5 times size of United States.
*Location: Occupies eastern portion of European continent and northern portion of Asian continent. Most of country north of 50° north latitude.
*Topography: Vast steppe with low hills west of Ural Mountains; extensive coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; deserts in Central Asia; mountains along southern boundaries.
*Climate: Generally temperate to Arctic continental. Winters vary from short and cold along Black Sea to long and frigid in Siberia. Summers vary from hot in southern deserts to cool along Arctic coast. Weather usually harsh and unpredictable. Generally dry with more than half of country receiving fewer than forty centimeters of rainfall per year, most of Soviet Central Asia northeastern Siberia receiving only half that amount.
*Land Boundaries: 19,933 kilometers total: Afghanistan 2,384 kilometers' China 7,520 kilometers; Czechoslovakia 98 kilometers; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 17 kilometers; Finland 1,313 kilometers, Hungary 135 kilometers; Iran 1,690 kilometers; Mongolia 3,441 kilometers; Norway 196 kilometers; Poland 1,215 kilometers; Romania 1,307 kilometers; and Turkey 617 kilometers.
*Water Boundaries: 42,777 kilometers washed by oceanic systems of Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific.
*Land Use: 11 percent of land arable; 16 percent meadows and pasture; 41 percent forest and woodland; and 32 percent other, including tundra.
*Natural Resources: Oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, timber, gold, manganese, lead, zinc, nickel, mercury, potash, phosphates, and most strategic minerals.

===Administrative-Political-Territorial Divisions===
The USSR was divided into fifteen union republics - the largest administrative and political units - officially known as Soviet republics or union republics. Theoretically they were independent countries; in practice they were controlled by the Kremlin. Nationality, size of the population, and location were the determinants for republic status. By far the largest and most important was the Russian Republic, containing about 51% of the population. In 1989 Russians made up over 51% of the Soviet population and were politically, economically and culturally the dominant nationality, there are more than 100 other nationality groups that make up Soviet society. Fourteen other major nationalities also have their own republics: in the European part are the [[Lithuania]]n, [[Latvia]]n, [[Estonia]]n, [[Belarus|Belarusian]], [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]], and [[Moldavia]]n republics; the [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n, [[Azerbaijan]], and [[Armenian]] republics occupy the Caucasus; and Soviet Central Asia is home to the [[Kazakhstan|Kazakh]], [[Uzbekistan|Uzbek]], [[Turkmenistan|Turkmen]], [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz]], and [[Tajikistan|Tajik]] republics.

The Soviet republics were subdivided into administrative subdivisions called autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okruga, kraia, or most often oblasts. These subdivisions made the country easier to manage and some served to recognize additional nationalities.

==People==
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|right|The [[Nobel Prize]] winning [[Russia|Russian]] author [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was exiled from the Soviet Union due to his criticism of the Soviet government.]]
The official Soviet census of 1989 listed over 100 nationalities in the Soviet Union. Each had its own history, culture, and language. Each possessed its own sense of national identity and national consciousness. The position of each nationality in the Soviet Union depended to a large degree on its size, the percentage of the people using the national language as their first language, the degree of its integration into the Soviet society, and its territorial-administrative status. This position was also dependent on each nationality's share of membership in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU), the number of students in higher institutions, the number of scientific workers, and the urbanization of each nationality.

The various nationalities differed greatly in size. On the one hand, the [[Russia]]ns, who constituted about 50.8 percent of the population, numbered about 145 million in 1989. On the other hand, half of the nationalities listed in the census together accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total population, most of them having fewer than 100,000 people. Twenty-two nationalities had more than 1 million people each. Fifteen of the major nationalities had their own union republics, which together comprised the federation known as the Soviet Union.

The nationalities having union republic status commanded more political and economic power than other nationalities and found it easier to maintain their own language and culture. In 1989 some nationalities formed an overwhelming majority within their own republics; one nationality (the Kazakhs), however, lacked even a majority. In addition to the fifteen union republics, individual nationalities had their own territorial units, such as autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okruga. The remaining nationalities did not have territorial units of their own and in most cases only constituted minorities in the Russian Republic.

The nationalities that have had a significant political and economic impact on the Soviet Union include the fifteen nationalities that have their own union republics and the non-union republic nationalities that numbered at least 1 million people in 1989. They are the Slavic nationalities, the Baltic nationalities, the nationalities of the Caucasus, the Central Asian nationalities, and a few other nationalities.
*Population: 293,047,571 (1991 estimate). Average annual growth rate 0.9 percent. Density twelve persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of people lived west of Ural Mountains.
*Nationalities: 51 percent of population Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian, 6 percent Uzbek, nearly 4 percent Belorussian, and 24 percent about 100 other nationalities.
[[File:Bezhnoznik u stanka 15-1929.jpg|thumb|260px|A Soviet propaganda poster disseminated in the ''Bezbozhnik'' (''Atheist'') magazine depicting [[Jesus]] being dumped from a wheelbarrow by an industrial worker as well as a smashed church [[bell]]; the text advocates Industrialisation Day as an alternative replacement to the [[Christian]] Transfiguration Day. see: [[Militant atheism]] ]]
*Religions: Religious worship was authorized by Constitution, but Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology, was militantly [[Atheism|atheistic]] (see: [[Militant atheism]]). Reliable statistics are unavailable, but about 18 percent was Russian Orthodox; 17 percent Muslim; and nearly 7 percent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, and Jewish combined. Officially, most of remainder was atheist.
*Languages: Russian was the official language. Over 200 other languages and dialects were spoken, often as the primary tongue; 18 languages were spoken by groups of more than 1 million each. About 75 percent of people spoke Slavic languages.
*Education: Highly centralized school system with standardized curriculum. Attendance was compulsory through eleventh grade. Strong emphasis on training for vocations selected by central authorities. Indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist ideology at all levels. Science and technology emphasized at secondary level and above. As of 1979 census, official literacy rate 99.8 percent for persons between nine and forty-nine years old. Over 5.3 million studied at universities and institutes, nearly 50 percent part time. All education free, and in many cases students received stipends.
*Health and Welfare: Medical care by government health institutions; free, but of poor quality for general public despite having the highest number of physicians and hospital beds per capita in world. Welfare and pension programs provided, albeit marginally, for substantial segments of population.

===Population===
Seven official censuses have been taken in the Soviet Union (1920, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989). Both the quality and the quantity of the data have varied: in 1972 seven volumes totaling 3,238 pages were published on the 1970 census. In contrast, the results of the 1979 census were published more than five years later in a single volume of 366 pages.

According to the census of 1989, on the day of the census, January 12, the population of the Soviet Union was estimated to be 286,717,000. This figure maintained the country's long-standing position as the world's third most populous country after China and India. In the intercensal period (1979-88), the population of the Soviet Union grew from 262.4 million to 286.7 million, a 9 percent increase.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union experienced declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, a trend toward smaller nuclear families, and increasing mobility and urbanization. Major problems associated with such factors as migration, tension among nationality groups, uneven fertility rates, and high infant and adult mortality became increasingly acute, and various social programs and incentives were introduced to deal with them.

===Religion===
Over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially [[Atheism|atheistic]] state, professed religious belief. [[Christianity]] and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism.

The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

==Government==
[[File:200px-Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png|thumbnail|200px|Coat of arms of the Soviet Union. The legend on the red ribbon repeats, in the fifteen national languages spoken in the original "republics," the final line from Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto: "Workers of all countries, unite!" The hammer-sickle device overspreading the world signifies the spread of Communism worldwide.]]
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union government]]''
The Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society through decisions made by the extremely authoritarian leading political institution in the country, the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU).

In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with other Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, which was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the Constitution of 1977, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs.

In practice, however, the government differed markedly from other Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of [[democratic centralism]]. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.

The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past.

The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the prime minister - was always a member of the Politburo. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers.

According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions.

The government lacked an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an [[Adversary proceeding|adversary court procedure]]. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than protecting individual rights.

The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial (''oblast'', ''krai'', and autonomous subdivisions), and district (''raion'') governments.

==History==
:''Main article: [[History of the Soviet Union]]''
===Lenin===
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd overthrew the imperial government in March 1917, leading to the formation of the Provisional Government, which intended to establish democracy in Russia. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (''soviets'') sprang up across the country. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir I. Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets, and they seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the ensuing Civil War (1918-21) and foreign intervention was the new communist government secure.

From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating influence and isolating his rivals within the party, [[Joseph Stalin|Joseph V. Stalin]] became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.

===Stalin===
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|225px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]], the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate [[militant atheism]] and eradicate [[religion]].<ref name=Hesemann-Strieber>{{cite book|author=Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber|title=The Fatima Secret|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tx-BEpkJBq8C&pg=PT107&dq=Joseph+Stalin+militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=-DeRTpLrJoPi0QHo88wi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Stalin%20militant%20atheism&f=false|quote=Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread [[atheism]] and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.|publisher=Random House Digital, Inc.|date=2000|accessdate=09 October 2011}}</ref> See also: [[Atheism]] ]]
In 1928 [[Joseph Stalin]] introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture, the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms. These sweeping economic innovations produced widespread misery, and millions of peasants perished during forced collectivization. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s when Stalin began a purge of the party; out of this purge grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions of people from all walks of life. Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.

===World War II===
Stalin tried to divide up [[Central Europe]] with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The USSR took over the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and the eastern borderlands (Polish: 'Kresy') of Poland, while going to war with [Finland]]. Communists across the world ended their diatribes against fascism, while Stalin provided the German war machine with supplies of oil and grain. Europe was not big enough for two dictators, so in June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The U.S. and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin to fight the Nazis, and poured in [[Lend Lease]] aid. After many humiliating defeats and the loss of three mission soldiers, the Red Army finally stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43 and then all of [[Central Europe]] before Germany surrendered in 1945. Although severely ravaged in the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as one of the world's great powers.
===Cold War===
During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, using resourcs stripped from defeated Germany. The Red Army imposed Communist political control over postwar [[Central Europe]] and the Balkans, except for Yugoslavia and Albania. The active Soviet foreign policy helped bring about the [[Cold War]], starting about 1947, which turned its wartime allies, Britain and the United States, into foes. Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953.
===Khrushchev===
[[File:Nikita Krushchev.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikita Khrushchev]] liked to threaten and bully, often using "brinkmanship" (the threat of nuclear weapons); ''Time'' Sept. 8, 1961]]

see: [[Nikita Khrushchev]]

After three years of a join leadership, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] seized power, denounced Stalin's use of terror and effectively reduced repressive controls over party and society. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964.

===Brezhnev ===
Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, which lasted until [[Leonid Brezhnev|Leonid I. Brezhnev]] established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of détente with the rest of the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of [[détente]] in the late 1970s. Also contributing to the end of détente was the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]] in December 1979.

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of cautious conservatism and aversion to change. Brezhnev was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov.

===Reagan challenge===
Friction with other Western countries continued in the 1980's, especially with the United States and its new president, [[Ronald Reagan]], who saw the Soviet Union for what it was and branded it an "evil empire," partially in response to the Afghanistan occupation. Reagan negotiated with West Germany to provide sites for the basing of Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow. A short period of confrontation existed between the two superpowers during the period of late-1983 through 1984, beginning with the tragic Soviet attack on a commercial airliner, [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], over international waters near Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983, and killing 269 civilians, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, [[Larry McDonald]]; this was followed by events within a military exercise known as Able Archer, in which a falling satellite was mistaken for an incoming ICBM and almost triggered a major war. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a space-based missile defense system critics derisively dubbed "Star Wars" as well as his expansion of the United States military, also prompted a new, expensive arms race.

Andropov and his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, kept the communist system under Brezhnev intact, but upon Chernenko's death [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became party chairman.

===Gorbachev and the end of Communism===
see [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]

A reformer, he introduced a series of economic and political reforms known as ''[[glasnost]]'' ("openess") and ''[[perestroika]]'' ("restructuring"), which began to creak open the doors of the Soviet's closed system. A failed attempt to reign in the three [[Baltic States]] in 1989 led to a domino-effect of [[Warsaw Pact]] countries abandoning communism; a coup attempt against Gorbachev in 1991 by hard-liners trying to keep their tattering empire ended within days. The USSR was formally dissolved on Christmas day 1991 by [[Boris Yeltsin]], freeing many from its tyranny. The main successor state to the Soviet Union is [[Russia]]; the effort to form a "Commonwealth of Independent States" went nowhere, and the 15 republics of the USSR are now independent states.

==See Also==
*[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]
*[[Soviet Union government]]
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[KAL 007: the Russian Federation support for a water landing]] The Soviet Staff and military communications evidence
*[[Soviet Officers of KAL 007 Shootdown]]
*[[KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts]]
*[[KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown]]
*[[Anatoly Kornukov]]
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]]
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1990)
* Ingram, Philip. ''Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-1905-1991-Cambridge-History-Programme/dp/0521568676/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232394134&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Keep, John L. H. ''Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/25055927?title=Last%20of%20the%20Empires%3a%20A%20History%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201945-1991 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''The Soviet Union: 1917-1991'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54365219 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Who's Who in Russia since 1900,'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/103052094?title=Who's%20Who%20in%20Russia%20since%201900 online edition]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396454&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]
===Lenin and Stalin===
* Bullock, Alan. ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (1992), a double biography covering each man in separate but parallel chapters
* Lee, Stephen J. ''Stalin and the Soviet Union'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/108215209?title=Stalin%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Stalin and Stalinism'' (3rd ed 2003), 172pp
* Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'' (2004), along with Tucker the standard biography
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002)
* Tucker, Robert C. ''Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929'' (1973); ''Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103246514 online edition] with Service, a standard biography; [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Ulam, A. B. ''Stalin'' (1973), good older biography; replaced by Tucker and Service
* Wood, Alan. ''Stalin and Stalinism'', (2004), 105pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108863368 online edition]
===Peoples, society, culture===
* Cole, J. P. ''Geography of the Soviet Union'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/7724372?title=Geography%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Davis, Nathaniel. ''A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/30537968?title=A%20Long%20Walk%20to%20Church%3a%20A%20Contemporary%20History%20of%20Russian%20Orthodoxy online edition]
* Denber, Rachel. ''The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/97474829?title=The%20Soviet%20Nationality%20Reader%3a%20The%20Disintegration%20in%20Context online edition]
* Lane, David. ''Soviet Society under Perestroika'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/103443652?title=Soviet%20Society%20under%20Perestroika online edition]
* Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky. ''Women, Work, and Family in the Soviet Union'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/read/106056669?title=Women%2c%20Work%2c%20and%20Family%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Lutz, Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei Scherbov, Andrei Volkov. ''Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union before 1991'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/103849492?title=Demographic%20Trends%20and%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20before%201991 online edition]
* Wixman, Ronald. ''The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/582240?title=The%20Peoples%20of%20the%20USSR%3a%20An%20Ethnographic%20Handbook online edition]

===1918-1939===
* Daniels, R. V., ed. ''The Stalin Revolution'' (1965)
* Davies, Sarah, and James Harris, eds. ''Stalin: A New History,'' (2006), 310pp, 14 specialized essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-New-History-Sarah-Davies/dp/0521616530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* De Jonge, Alex. ''Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union'' (1986)
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. ''Stalinism: New Directions,'' (1999), 396pp excerpts from many scholars on the impact of Stalinism on the people (little on Stalin himself) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109468478 online edition]
* Hoffmann, David L. ed. ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings,'' (2002) essays by 12 scholars
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Tucker, Robert. ''Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Historical-Interpretation-Robert-Tucker/dp/0765804832/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876953&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]

===[[Gulag]] and Terror===
* Applebaum, Anne. ''Gulag: A History.'' 2003. 736 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-ANNE-APPLEBAUM/dp/B0007NMYPY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494284&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/read/79044140?title=The%20Great%20Terror%3a%20A%20Reassessment online edition]
* Pohl, J. Otto. ''Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/9465022?title=Ethnic%20Cleansing%20in%20the%20USSR%2c%201937-1949 online edition]
* Rosefielde, Steven. "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" ''Europe-Asia Studies,'' Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136(199609)48%3A6%3C959%3ASIPPNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

===World War II===
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review], on the Holocaust
* Broekmeyer, Marius. ''Stalin, the Russians, and Their War, 1941-1945.'' 2004. 315 pp.
* Overy, Richard. ''The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.'' 2004. 448 pp. focus on 1930-45 [http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Hitlers-Germany-Stalins-Russia/dp/B000FTCH5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494219&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Priestland, David. ''Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Politics-Mobilization-David-Priestland/dp/0199245134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494105&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Roberts, Geoffrey. ''Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953'' (2006).

===Cold War===
* see [[Cold War]]
* Craig, Campbell, and Yuri Smirnov. ''Truman, Stalin, and the Bomb'' (2008)
* Gaddis, John. ''A New History of the Cold War'' (2006)
* Holloway, David. ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Bomb-Soviet-Atomic-1939-1956/dp/0300066643/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876689&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98422373 online edition] [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
===Khruschev, Gorbachev===
* Brown, Archie. ''The Gorbachev Factor'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/109878423?title=The%20Gorbachev%20Factor online edition]
* Dallin, Alexander, and Gail W. Lapidus. ''The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/100838053?title=The%20Soviet%20System%3a%20From%20Crisis%20to%20Collapse online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2005), by leading conservative [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0812974891/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Library of Congress detailed country study on the Soviet Union]
*[http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/intro2.html The Soviet Union and the United States]
*State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html "On the Crimean Tatars"], The Kremlin, May 11, 1944.
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ The Secret Soviet Missions to KAL 007 at Moneron Island]

[[category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact Members]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Man-made Disasters]]
[[Category:Communism]]

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:05:18Z

Burke39: /* Soviet Union */ new section

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T06:01:22Z

Burke39: /* Christian Science */ Response

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T05:49:16Z

Burke39: /* Christian Science */ I did read what you said, I just do not agree with it.

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T05:47:58Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */ Clarification

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller

2015-05-12T05:39:42Z

Burke39: Added pipelink

{{President
|image=Nelson_Rockefeller.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=41
|term_start=December 19, 1974
|term_end=January 20, 1977
|party=Republican
|pres=Gerald Ford
|pres_dates=
|previous=Gerald Ford
|next=Walter Mondale
|birth_date=July 8, 1908
|birth_place=Bar Harbor, Maine
|death_date=January 26, 1979
|death_place=New York City, New York
|spouse=[[Mary Rockefeller|Mary Todhunter Clark]]
|spouse2=Margaretta Fitler Murphy
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Nelson Rockefeller''' (born July 8, 1908 in Bar Harbor Maine, died January 26, 1979 in New York, New York) was Vice President of the USA under President [[Gerald Ford|Gerald R. Ford]] from 1974-1977. He was also Governor of New York, and ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 1960, 1964, and 1968. He was a liberal Republican.

He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1930. He married Mary Todhunter Clark on June 23 of that year, a few days after his graduation. Together they had five children. He divorced her in 1962 and the following year married Margretta Fitler Murphy and he had two children with her and remained married to her until his death in 1979.

He was also a prominent businessman and liberal Republican politician. He was the son of industrialist [[John D. Rockefeller, Jr.]] and the grandson of Standard Oil's founder and owner [John D. Rockefeller]. He was also the maternal grandson of USA Senator [[Nelson Aldrich|Nelson W. Aldrich]] of Rhode Island. He was an adviser to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] during [[World War II]] and headed office of [[Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs]] (CIAA).

After the war he continued as an adviser to President Truman and helped him to develop anti-communist geopolitical programs during the [[Cold War]] such such as Point Four. He also was an adviser to President Eisenhower. He left the Eisenhower administration eventually, though.

In 1958 he won his party's nomination to be governor of New York and proceeded to win the general election against Democratic incumbent Averill Harriman in an otherwise Democratic year. He unsuccessfully sought his party's presidential nomination in 1960 but withdrew from the race when it became clear that [[Richard Nixon]] would win the nomination. He campaigned for Nixon in the general election campaign. But Nixon still lost to Kennedy.

In 1964 Rockefeller again sought the Republican presidential nomination but lost to conservative USA Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] of [[Arizona]]. Rockefeller backed Goldwater in the general election, but with more caution than he had supported Nixon. Rockefeller refused to publicly campaign with Goldwater. In 1968 Rockefeller again sought his party's presidential nomination but lost to Nixon.

He then supported Nixon wholeheartedly in the general election. After Nixon resigned because of the [[Watergate]] affair and Vice President Ford became president, the new president appointed Rockefeller vice president, before there was a competition between Rockefeller and George Bush to persuade Ford to pick them for the Vice Presidency.<ref>Parmet, Herbert George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee pages 168-171</ref> Rockefeller was replaced by USA Senator [[Robert Dole]] as the Republican party's vice presidential nominee in 1976, due to opposition by conservatives to Rockefeller. He campaigned for Ford and Dole, but after the campaign he retired. He died of a heart attack in 1979.

==Sources==
''The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller: 1908-1958: Worlds to Conquer'' by Cary Reich.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Finance]]

{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rockefeller, Nelson}}

{{Template:Economic preparedness topics}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Rockefeller, Nelson A.]]
[[Category:New York Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Politicians]]
[[Category : People]]
[[Category : Business People]]
[[Category : Business]]
[[Category : Celebrities]]
[[Category : Billionaires]]
[[Category : Philanthropy]]
[[Category : Economic history]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:35:43Z

Burke39: fixed link

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry.
<ref>[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony

<ref>[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html]</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Groups]]

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T05:32:13Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */ Comment on Christian Science lead

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T05:25:09Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */ Response to what User:Conservative said

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:13:50Z

Burke39: /* External links */ There's no external links there, just words. So they should be deleted.

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry. <ref[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony

<ref>[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html]</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Groups]]

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:13:02Z

Burke39: unfortunately the only way I can abbreviate the link without wrecking the format is without titling it

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry. <ref[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony

<ref>[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html]</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
[[Category:Groups]]

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:10:04Z

Burke39: Undo revision 1152408 by Burke39 (talk)I made a mistake in formatting the link

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry. <ref[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony <ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
[[Category:Groups]]

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:08:20Z

Burke39: abbreviated and titled link

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry. <ref[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony <ref>[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html/ Cecil Rhodes biography on a Masonic website]</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
[[Category:Groups]]

Freemasonry

2015-05-12T05:04:33Z

Burke39: Added specific Christian churches that oppose Freemasonry I'm going to take out the statement "various Christian churches oppose Freemasonry" afterenugh have been mentioned cause its weasel words

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternity for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons appendant body in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member.

Various [[Christianity|Christian]] churches and [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] are opposed to Freemasonry and indicate that its teachings are incompatible with biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-join-the-masonic-lodge/ Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html Freemasonry and the Christian Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/free-masonry.html What is Free Masonry and what do Free Masons believe?]</ref> The Roman Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry, which it first condemned in an encyclical issued by Pope Clement XII in 1738. <ref>[https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM/ Catholicism vs. Freemasonry—Irreconcilable Forever Rev. Robert I. Bradley]</ref> The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is opposed to Freemasonry.<ref>[http://www.orlutheran.com/masoniclodge.html]</ref> The Orthodox Church in America also opposes Freemasonry. <ref[http://oca.org/questions/nonchristiangroups/masonic-fraternity]</ref>

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

When [[Adolf Hitler]] came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in [[Germany]].<ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007187]</ref>

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

[[Buzz Aldrin]] (1930 - ): American [[astronaut]], the second man (after Neil Armstrong) to walk on the moon

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (1935 - ): Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen [[Elizabeth II]] and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Prince Michael of Kent: Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish, Jr. (1979 - ): 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion

[[Trent Lott]]: former United States [[Senator]] and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery (1937 - ): Governor-General of Australia

Kermit W. Richardson: National Master, National Grange

[[John Glenn]] (1921 - ): Pilot, Astronaut and United States Senator<ref name="space"/>

Historically well-known Masons:

Sir John J.C. Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure ''Liberty Enlightening the World'', also known as the [[Statue of Liberty]], (1834-1904)

[[Robert Burns]], Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

[[Robert Byrd]]: Senator, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord [[Randolph Churchill]]: British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir [[Winston Churchill]]: British politician (1874 - 1965)

[[Ty Cobb]]: baseball legend

[[Theodore Roosevelt]]: US president (1858 - 1919)

Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859-1930): author of the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels

[[W.E.B. DuBois]] (1868-1963): scholar and co-founder of the NAACP

HM [[Edward VII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM [[Edward VIII]]: King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher (1887 - 1972): Archbishop of [[Canterbury]]

Sir Alexander Fleming (1881 - 1955): medical doctor who discovered penicillin

[[Gerald R. Ford]]: US President

[[Henry Ford]]: automotive executive

[[Benjamin Franklin]]: [[Founding Father]] of the United States, diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling (1818-1903): engineer and inventor

HM [[George VI]]: King

Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836-1911): poet/librettist (Gilbert and Sullivan)

Tim Horton (1930-1974): Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants

Dr. [[Edward Jenner]] (1749-1823): medical doctor (wound sterilization)

Alexander Kerensky: Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King (1878-1956): Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945

[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865-1936): author

[[Robert E. Lee]]: General, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

[[Charles Lindbergh]] (1902-1974): American aviator

[[Douglas MacArthur]] (1880-1964): General, US Chief of Staff

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie (1897-1999): Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator

Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815): 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist

[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] (1756-1791): musical composer. His work, ''The Magic Flute'', contains many Masonic references.

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr.: USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. [[Norman Vincent Peale]]: Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

[[Robert Peary]] (1856-1920): Admiral, polar explorer

[[Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin]] (1799-1837): Russian poet and author of ''Boris Gudunov''

Cecil Rhodes (1852-1903): Anglo-African entrepreneur and politician, founder of Rhodesia, Prime Minister of Cape Colony <ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/rhodes_c/rhodes_c.html</ref>

[[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]: United States President

Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771-1832): British historical novelist and poet

[[Red Skelton]] (1913-1997): actor, comedian

[[Joseph Smith]] (1805-1844): founder of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints]]

Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842-1900): composer (Gilbert and Sullivan)

[[Dave Thomas]]: philanthropist and founder of [[Wendy's]] (restaurant chain)

[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815-1882): British novelist

[[Harry S. Truman]]: United States President

Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918-1940): tallest man on record

[[George Washington]] (1732-1799): General, United States President

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852): Field Marshal, defeated Napoleon, politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

William Charles Wentworth (1790-1872): Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia

Darryl F. Zanuck (1902-1979): movie maker

[[Neil Armstrong]] (1930-2012): American astronaut. Claimed as a Mason in many Masonic publications, it may rather have been his father who was a Mason.<ref name="space">[http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/ Freemasons in Space] Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, retrieved August 24, 2011</ref>

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
[[Category:Groups]]

Talk:Freemasonry

2015-05-12T04:57:43Z

Burke39:

Frankly, most of this info is bunk. It goes on weird, irrelevant tangents, and is biased.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps at one point but as it stands now it is quite concise and to the point, and might I add the most fair and informative article I've seen on Freemasonry on the internet in a long time.
[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm no, I've changed my mind. It's rather skimpy to be certain.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Still though it's nice to see it not being trashed.
no mention is made in this article that freemasonry is regarded as an anti-christian organisation. john thurloe 31 10 08
:Probably because it generally ISN'T regarded as an anti-Christian organisation, except by a lunatic fringe, and there's no reason whatsoever that it should be. Nothing in Freemasonry is contrary to the teachings of Christianity. The Swedish Rite is ONLY open to christians. The book on the altar may be referred to as the Volume of the Sacred Law, but in most Lodges it's a King James Bible. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 11:05, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'm not really religious, but I believe most Christian churches oppose Freemasonry. However, this is an encyclopedia, so I don't know that that should be focused on to much in the article. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
==History==
"In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.
When Adolf Hitler came to power he soon outlawed Freemasonry in Germany." That seems like a very brief history that excludes a lot of important information.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:55, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
::::"(However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)" That is not the view of mainstream historians of Freemasonry, whether Freemasons or not. That is the view of some people who it could be kindly said had a loose hold on reality. People like Freemason Manly Hall or anti-Freemason David Icke. Its not a view held by the majority of scholars of Freemasonry, whether pro-Masonic, anti-Masonic, or neutral. Also, I don't know about here, but on wikipedia saying "some people claim X" is considered weasel words, because its not specific. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:58, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Roger Ailes

2015-05-12T04:56:41Z

Burke39: Added citation

[[File:Roger Ailes.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Roger Eugene Ailes''' (born May 15, 1940) is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer FOX News Channel and the FOX Business Network, as well as Chairman of Fox Television Stations and Twentieth Television. He has oversight over all national operations for FOX News and Television, serves as a senior adviser to [[Rupert Murdoch]], Chairman and CEO of [[News Corporation]].
Since joining FOX News in 1996, Ailes created FOX’s first weekly public affairs show, “FOX News Sunday” and oversaw the successful launch of FOX News Channel and Fox Business. “He understands the news media, politics and the American people as well as anyone in the modern age,” says former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?_r=0/ A Fox Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics
By David Carr and Tim Arangokan. 9, 2010]</ref>

Prior to FOX, Ailes was president of [[CNBC]], making it the fastest growing major cable network in America and a leading source for business news, tripling ratings and increasing profits from $9 million to well over $100 million. Ailes also oversaw CNBC’s 1995 worldwide expansion to Europe and Asia. ''At the same time, he was president of "America’s Talking", which later became [[MSNBC]].''

He was a three-year term as a board member of the National Hemophilia Foundation, a member of the Director’s Guild of America and a trustee of the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg.

Ailes earned his bachelor’s and received an honorary doctorate from Ohio University.

== Fox News Tenure ==

{{cquote|'''Mr. Ailes is certainly making money. At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year (2010), according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.''' <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?_r=1&ref=roger_e_ailes New York Times; "A Fox Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics"]</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''"If he were a Democrat, I think there would be 67 Democratic senators right now," said the political consultant [[James Carville]]. ''In terms of the news business, the cable television business, and the political business, there is him....and then there is everybody else.'''''}}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Also See ==
* [[Fox News Channel]]

== Outside Links ==
Roger Ailes Biography, Blog and News Updates [http://www.rogerailes.com]

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, the Fox News chief says Obama thinks differently from most Americans, defends Murdoch’s GOP donations, and admits Beck sometimes goes too far.[http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-16/fox-news-chairman-roger-ailes-slams-white-house-in-exclusive-interview/]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ailes, Roger}}

[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[category:Media Professionals]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T04:53:50Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */

Arlen Specter

2015-05-12T04:51:33Z

Burke39: He isn't alive anymore, so past tense should be used.

{{Officeholder
|name=Arlen Specter
|image=Specter-0.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Joan Specter
|religion=[[Judaism]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Pennsylvania
|terms=January 5, 1981 – January 5, 2011
|preceded=Richard Schweiker
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Pat Toomey]]
}}
}}

'''Arlen Specter''' (February 12, 1930 – October 14, 2012) was the former Democratic senior [[United States]] Senator from [[Pennsylvania]]. He was first elected in 1980, and was subsequently reelected five times since then. He had moderate to liberal viewpoints - particularly when it came to economic and social issues. He supported Obama's massive stimulus bill in 2009 and opposed attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Before defecting to the [[Democratic Party]] (see below), Senator Specter was a [[RINO]], disagreeing with the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] Administration on numerous issues. He was one of three Republicans who supported Obama's stimulus bill in 2009. Threatened with a [[conservative]] [[primary]] challenger for his seat in 2010, on April 28, 2009, he announced he was switching to the Democratic party. Once [[Al Franken]] was declared the victor in the [[Minnesota]] Senate race, Specter's vote provided the crucial 60th vote needed for the Democrats (and the two independents) to stop GOP [[filibusters]]. However, that filibuster-proof majority ended when [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Scott Brown]] won the [[Massachusetts]] special Senate election in January 2010.

Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary by Joe Sestak for his reelection in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]].
==Career==
He was a [[United States Air Force|U.S. Air Force]] veteran, serving within the U.S. as an officer within the Air Force Office of Special Investigations during the [[Korean War]].

==Political Career==
Specter's first foray into politics was his election as [[Philadelphia]]'s District Attorney in 1965. He mounted an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Philadelphia in 1967 and was defeated for reelection to a third term as District Attorney in 1973. He was defeated in the 1976 Republican Primary for U.S. Senate by John Heinz and in the 1978 primary for Governor of Pennsylvania by Dick Thornburgh. Arlen Specter was elected to the Senate in 1980 and is currently serving his fifth term. In 2005, Senator Specter became Pennsylvania's longest-serving U.S. Senator. He was formerly Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was a senior member of the Appropriations and Veterans Affairs committees. However, after defecting from the Republican Party and joining the Democrat caucus, Specter lost all of his seniority. Specter went from serving as the most powerful Republican on the Judiciary Committee to the lowest-ranking Democrat in four out of his five committee assignments. <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/arlen_specter_stripped/2009/05/06/211368.html</ref>

Arlen Specter made an unsuccessful run for the presidency in 1996 and ended up supporting Republican nominee [[Robert Dole]].

====The "Unicorn" murder====
[[File:The Unicorn Killer.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Ira Einhorn]]
Specter has a knack for notoriety; in one such case he was a member of the Warren Commission investigating the death of President [[John F. Kennedy]] when he was credited with creating the "magic bullet" theory, which in essence was a single bullet that wounded Kennedy and Texas governor John Connoly, but not before it went through a pair of right-angle turns in mid-air before hitting Connoly.

But his most notorious case - and one which he rarely talks about - is his getting the release on bail of [[Ira Einhorn]], a celebrated Philadelphia liberal and leftist who had strong ties to the elite in the city, and who was scheduled to go to trial for the murder of his former girlfriend, Holly Maddux, who was two-years dead when her mummified body was found stuffed in a trunk in Einhorn's closet in 1979. Specter - who also shared the same elite ties with Einhorn, convinced the judge to have his bail reduced from and "excessive" $100,000 to $40,000, with Einhorn putting up a mere 10% to be released. Judge William Marutani had initially thought that Einhorn might flee to Norway; "I have to disagree with your last statement," replied Specter. "Anybody is as likely to go to Norway as anybody else." Einhorn did flee the country before his trial started in 1981, to Sweden. He remained a fugitive until 1997, when he was extradited from France, convicted in a new trial, and sentenced to life in prison. [http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200404080822.asp][http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/04/29/specter-switches-ira-einhorn-saga-deserves-wider-mention]

==Political Views==
Specter's moderate to liberal views have affected his political career as a Republican. Many considered him a RINO (Republican in Name Only) while he was in that party. For example, his status as the Chairman of the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] (a position he held from January, 2005 through January, 2007) was in question when he made comments hinting that he would oppose candidates who would overturn [[Roe v. Wade]]. In addition, in the 2004 Republican Senate Primary Election, he only received 51% of the vote when the conservative [[Patrick Toomey]] challenged him.

Arlen Specter was the only Republican in the Senate to vote for the [[Employee Free Choice Act]], <ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/27/nation/na-union27</ref>, legislation supported by big labor that would eliminate a private-ballot vote over whether workers would [[union]]ize. Specter was also one of only three Republicans in the United State Congress to vote for the 2009 economic stimulus bill. Additionally, Specter has announced he supports Single Payer [[Healthcare]]. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb-6QfxqKnk&feature=channel</ref>

In the past, there were issues where Specter was considered marginally [[conservative]]. In 2002, he voted to authorize the use of military force in [[Iraq]], although many Democrats did so as well. A native of [[Kansas]], Specter supports [[Second Amendment]] rights, receiving an A rating from the National Rifle Association, and [[capital punishment]]. Specter also supported the confirmation of conservative Clarence Thomas when he was appointed by President Bush to the US Supreme Court in 1991 and aroused considerable controversy through his questioning of Anita Hill, a witness who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Specter generally supported Republican nominees although he cast a crucial vote against conservative Robert Bork, who was nominated by President Reagan to the Supreme Court.

===Interest Group Ratings===

Prior to changing parties, political interest groups reflected Arlen Specter's moderate to liberal reputation. <ref>https://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53340&type=category&category=10&go.x=5&go.y=13</ref>

*Received a 100% rating from [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]]
*Received a 79% rating from [[Planned Parenthood]]
*Received a 14% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]]
*Rated '''D''' by the [[National Taxpayers Union]]
*Received a 43% rating from the [[American Civil Liberties Union]]
*Received a 42% rating from the [[American Conservative Union]]
*Received a 60% rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]]
*Received a 43% rating from the [[American Family Association]]
*Received an A from the [[National Rifle Association]]
*Received a 100% rating from [[Gun Owners of America]]
*Received a '''D-''' from [[Americans for Better Immigration]]

==Health Problems==
On February 16, 2005, Specter announced that he had been diagnosed with an advanced form of Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer. Despite the advanced form, Specter continued working during chemotherapy. He ended treatment on July 22. Senator John Sununu shaved his head to show solidarity with Specter when he was undergoing chemotherapy and was temporarily bald. On October 14, 2012, he passed away.

==2010 Reelection==

[[File:Specter graph.PNG|left|300px|thumb|Studies show Arlen Specter's 2010 reelection campaign has influenced his voting record.]]Specter barely won the 2004 Republican primary, which allows only registered Republicans to vote, by less than 2% against [[conservative]] challenger [[Pat Toomey]]. [[Rick Santorum]], himself a former Pennsylvania senator, described that "Specter's biggest problem ... may be that thousands of southeastern Pennsylvania Republicans who voted for him in 2004 can't vote for him in the (2010) primary. Why? Because they're no longer Republicans." In fact, the number of registered Republicans in Pennsylvania decreased by 162,000 between 2004 and 2008.<ref>http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Arlen_Specter_tilting_rightward.html</ref> This is one of the main reasons why Specter switched parties; to get re-elected in 2010, he needed to rely on his left-leaning supporters. However, Specter was denied the 2010 Democratic senatorial nomination, and the more conservative Republican Pat Toomey , who lost the Republican primary to Specter six years earlier, narrowly won the general election for the seat in a strongly Republican year in Pennsylvania.

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Ira Einhorn]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Specter, Arlen}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]

Christian Science

2015-05-12T04:49:12Z

Burke39: It seems redundant to me to say "or as its adherents prefer to say" I'm pretty people who follow that religion would accept the statement that she started it in this world at least.

'''Christian Science''' is the name for a religious denomination formally known as ''First Church of Christ, Scientist,'' and for that denomination's system of beliefs. It was started by [[Mary Baker Eddy]] in 1879, and presented in her book, ''Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures.''

Christian Science lays emphasis on curing disease through faith. It holds that disease is contrary to the will of God and therefore represents a "state of error" which can be corrected through prayer alone.

Christian Scientists maintain that the denomination is Christian in every sense of the word, despite some idiosyncrasies in its practices ("non-material" celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist) and terminology (Christ Jesus is referred to as the "wayshower.")

==Christian Science and the medical establishment==
The relationship between Christian Science and the medical establishment is complex and tense. Christian Scientists who seem to be ill are supposed to seek help from "Christian Science practitioners" for prayer and spiritual counseling, instead of seeking medical treatment from doctors. Accounts vary as to the degree of social and spiritual pressure that is brought to bear in their decision-making, but certainly a decision to seek medical help is a difficult one for Scientists. Christian Scientists come into conflict with public health and child welfare officials when they delay or deny medical treatment to their children. In a tragic, high-profile 1977 case, a Christian Science couple's 15-month-old son died of untreated meningitis.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954258-2,00.html Matters of Faith and Death], Time Magazine, 1984].</ref>

In 2006, a Christian Scientist in Boston contracted a case of measles, causing concern that the disease might spread quickly within the largely-unvaccinated population; according to Church officials, rapid action was taken, six individuals were quarantined at home, and the church informed its membership, including how to get vaccinated—stating that "The Church neither encouraged or discouraged vaccinations, and has no policy against the procedure."<ref>[http://medgadget.com/archives/2006/06/measles_in_bost.html Measles in Boston: Collision of Church and State, Science and Journalism], Medgadget</ref>

==Organization==
The Church of Christ, Scientist is headquartered in Boston, in a large complex which includes the Mother Church,<ref>known as '''The''' First Church of Christ, Scientist, as distinguished from the others, designated simply "First Church of Christ, Scientist"</ref> the Christian Science Publishing Company, and a unique world globe called the Mapparium. It has about two thousand branches in seventy countries; however, the strongest support for it continues to exist in the northeastern United States, where it originated. The church does not publish membership figures, but it is thought to have about half a million adherents worldwide,<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_157.html#941 400,000] according to adherents.com</ref>, and its well-publicized recent financial difficulties have led outsiders to surmise that its membership is in decline.

A network of "Christian Science Reading Rooms" are operated by the Church; each is usually associated with a nearby church, and provides a form of outreach. Passersby can enter and study, borrow, or purchase copies of ''Science and Health'' or the current issue of the Christian Science Monitor. Often in storefront locations, in the United States they are a ubiquitous part of the urban and town landscape.<ref>The fictional city of Springfield in the animated cartoon series ''The Simpsons'' contains one.</ref>

The ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' is a newspaper founded by Eddy in 1908, partly in response to what she felt was biased coverage of Christian Science in the publications of the day. The New York Times referred to it as the "Eddy cult"<ref>"Christian Science Denounced. Plainfield Clergyman Preaches on the Unchristianity of the Eddy cult." June 10, 1901, p. 1</ref>. Mark Twain published a blistering book-length attack, suggesting that the Church was a device for the "concentration of money and authority in the hands of an irresponsible clique" and saying of Eddy that "I do not think her money-passion has ever diminished in ferocity, I do not think that she has ever allowed a dollar that had no friends to get by her alive." Eddy wanted her own publishing outlet.

From the beginning, the Monitor's coverage was never limited to Christian Science, and by the 1930s it had become a serious and well-respected newspaper. In the 1980s and 1990s the church attempted to expand into electronic media, with a syndicated radio news program, a Boston television station, and a cable channel, and became overextended, creating a financial crisis for the church.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2015-05-12T04:41:05Z

Burke39: Provided source.As I said USSR was founded 1922 Russian Republic was founded 1917 the Russian Republic was not the same thing as the USSR just like England is not the same thing as the UKGBNI

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Soviet Union''' (Russian: Советский Союз, ''Sovyetskiy Soyuz''), formally the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' (or '''USSR''') (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, ''Soyuz Sovietskykh Sotsialisticheskykh Respublik'', abbreviated ''СССР'') existed 1922-1991<ref>[http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-established/ This Day in History USSR Established 1922]</ref>, then broke into 15 separate countries, most notably [[Russia]]. It was the most powerful established [[socialist]] state in history, coming to power under [[Lenin]] in 1918 and killing millions of its citizens to establish a ruthless Communist dictatorship under [[Joseph Stalin]] in the 1930s. After cooperating with the USSR (1939-41), the Nazi Germans under [[Adolf Hitler]] invaded in a war to the death. The USSR defeated the Nazis in [[World War II]] (1941-45), and took control of most of [[Central Europe]], turning formerly independent countries into Communist satellite states. It was the primary antagonist of the United States during the [[Cold War]] (1947-1989); it then collapsed because of American pressure and its own internal economic and social failures. At its height the USSR covered one-sixth of the earth's land area, stretching from [[Central Europe]] across [[Eastern Europe]] and northern Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Although Russia and most of Soviet republics are [[Western world]] countries, during the Soviet period, a war was declared on Christianity, the country wanted to cut its Western roots and create a brand new civilisation, a communist utopia.

==Geography==
[[File:Siberian cat.jpg|thumbnail|300px|The [[Siberia]]n [[cat]] is the national cat of [[Russia]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bugsy_outside4.jpg Wikimedia commons], photographer: Jan Warner, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
Located in the middle and northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union's 22.4 million square kilometers included one-sixth of the earth's usable land area. Its western portion (European part of Russia), more than half of all European landmass, made up 25% of Russia's total area. European part of Russia (European Russia), however, was where 72% of the people lived and where most industrial and agricultural activities were concentrated. The largest region was the lightly populated [[Siberia]], a land between the Urals and the Pacific that for centuries was infamous as a place of exile, a land of endless expanses of snow and frigid temperatures.

Extending for over 60,000 kilometers, the Soviet border was the world's longest national frontier, sharing a common border with twelve countries, six on each continent. In Asia, its neighbors were the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] (North Korea), [[China]], [[Mongolia]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]]; in [[Europe]], it bordered [[Romania]], [[Hungary]], [[Czechoslovakia]] (now [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]]), [[Poland]], [[Norway]], and [[Finland]].

Approximately two-thirds of the frontier was bounded by water, forming the longest and, owing to its proximity to the North Pole, probably the most useless coastline of any country. Apart from Murmansk, which receives the warm currents of the Gulf Stream, the northern coast is locked in ice much of the year. The search for a warm water port was a central theme throughout Russian history.

A dozen seas, part of the water systems of three oceans--the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific--washed over Soviet shores.
*Size: Approximately 22,402,200 square kilometers (land area 22, 272,000 square kilometers); slightly less than 2.5 times size of United States.
*Location: Occupies eastern portion of European continent and northern portion of Asian continent. Most of country north of 50° north latitude.
*Topography: Vast steppe with low hills west of Ural Mountains; extensive coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; deserts in Central Asia; mountains along southern boundaries.
*Climate: Generally temperate to Arctic continental. Winters vary from short and cold along Black Sea to long and frigid in Siberia. Summers vary from hot in southern deserts to cool along Arctic coast. Weather usually harsh and unpredictable. Generally dry with more than half of country receiving fewer than forty centimeters of rainfall per year, most of Soviet Central Asia northeastern Siberia receiving only half that amount.
*Land Boundaries: 19,933 kilometers total: Afghanistan 2,384 kilometers' China 7,520 kilometers; Czechoslovakia 98 kilometers; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 17 kilometers; Finland 1,313 kilometers, Hungary 135 kilometers; Iran 1,690 kilometers; Mongolia 3,441 kilometers; Norway 196 kilometers; Poland 1,215 kilometers; Romania 1,307 kilometers; and Turkey 617 kilometers.
*Water Boundaries: 42,777 kilometers washed by oceanic systems of Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific.
*Land Use: 11 percent of land arable; 16 percent meadows and pasture; 41 percent forest and woodland; and 32 percent other, including tundra.
*Natural Resources: Oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, timber, gold, manganese, lead, zinc, nickel, mercury, potash, phosphates, and most strategic minerals.

===Administrative-Political-Territorial Divisions===
The USSR was divided into fifteen union republics - the largest administrative and political units - officially known as Soviet republics or union republics. Theoretically they were independent countries; in practice they were controlled by the Kremlin. Nationality, size of the population, and location were the determinants for republic status. By far the largest and most important was the Russian Republic, containing about 51% of the population. In 1989 Russians made up over 51% of the Soviet population and were politically, economically and culturally the dominant nationality, there are more than 100 other nationality groups that make up Soviet society. Fourteen other major nationalities also have their own republics: in the European part are the [[Lithuania]]n, [[Latvia]]n, [[Estonia]]n, [[Belarus|Belarusian]], [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]], and [[Moldavia]]n republics; the [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n, [[Azerbaijan]], and [[Armenian]] republics occupy the Caucasus; and Soviet Central Asia is home to the [[Kazakhstan|Kazakh]], [[Uzbekistan|Uzbek]], [[Turkmenistan|Turkmen]], [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz]], and [[Tajikistan|Tajik]] republics.

The Soviet republics were subdivided into administrative subdivisions called autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okruga, kraia, or most often oblasts. These subdivisions made the country easier to manage and some served to recognize additional nationalities.

==People==
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|right|The [[Nobel Prize]] winning [[Russia|Russian]] author [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was exiled from the Soviet Union due to his criticism of the Soviet government.]]
The official Soviet census of 1989 listed over 100 nationalities in the Soviet Union. Each had its own history, culture, and language. Each possessed its own sense of national identity and national consciousness. The position of each nationality in the Soviet Union depended to a large degree on its size, the percentage of the people using the national language as their first language, the degree of its integration into the Soviet society, and its territorial-administrative status. This position was also dependent on each nationality's share of membership in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU), the number of students in higher institutions, the number of scientific workers, and the urbanization of each nationality.

The various nationalities differed greatly in size. On the one hand, the [[Russia]]ns, who constituted about 50.8 percent of the population, numbered about 145 million in 1989. On the other hand, half of the nationalities listed in the census together accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total population, most of them having fewer than 100,000 people. Twenty-two nationalities had more than 1 million people each. Fifteen of the major nationalities had their own union republics, which together comprised the federation known as the Soviet Union.

The nationalities having union republic status commanded more political and economic power than other nationalities and found it easier to maintain their own language and culture. In 1989 some nationalities formed an overwhelming majority within their own republics; one nationality (the Kazakhs), however, lacked even a majority. In addition to the fifteen union republics, individual nationalities had their own territorial units, such as autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okruga. The remaining nationalities did not have territorial units of their own and in most cases only constituted minorities in the Russian Republic.

The nationalities that have had a significant political and economic impact on the Soviet Union include the fifteen nationalities that have their own union republics and the non-union republic nationalities that numbered at least 1 million people in 1989. They are the Slavic nationalities, the Baltic nationalities, the nationalities of the Caucasus, the Central Asian nationalities, and a few other nationalities.
*Population: 293,047,571 (1991 estimate). Average annual growth rate 0.9 percent. Density twelve persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of people lived west of Ural Mountains.
*Nationalities: 51 percent of population Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian, 6 percent Uzbek, nearly 4 percent Belorussian, and 24 percent about 100 other nationalities.
[[File:Bezhnoznik u stanka 15-1929.jpg|thumb|260px|A Soviet propaganda poster disseminated in the ''Bezbozhnik'' (''Atheist'') magazine depicting [[Jesus]] being dumped from a wheelbarrow by an industrial worker as well as a smashed church [[bell]]; the text advocates Industrialisation Day as an alternative replacement to the [[Christian]] Transfiguration Day. see: [[Militant atheism]] ]]
*Religions: Religious worship was authorized by Constitution, but Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology, was militantly [[Atheism|atheistic]] (see: [[Militant atheism]]). Reliable statistics are unavailable, but about 18 percent was Russian Orthodox; 17 percent Muslim; and nearly 7 percent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, and Jewish combined. Officially, most of remainder was atheist.
*Languages: Russian was the official language. Over 200 other languages and dialects were spoken, often as the primary tongue; 18 languages were spoken by groups of more than 1 million each. About 75 percent of people spoke Slavic languages.
*Education: Highly centralized school system with standardized curriculum. Attendance was compulsory through eleventh grade. Strong emphasis on training for vocations selected by central authorities. Indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist ideology at all levels. Science and technology emphasized at secondary level and above. As of 1979 census, official literacy rate 99.8 percent for persons between nine and forty-nine years old. Over 5.3 million studied at universities and institutes, nearly 50 percent part time. All education free, and in many cases students received stipends.
*Health and Welfare: Medical care by government health institutions; free, but of poor quality for general public despite having the highest number of physicians and hospital beds per capita in world. Welfare and pension programs provided, albeit marginally, for substantial segments of population.

===Population===
Seven official censuses have been taken in the Soviet Union (1920, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989). Both the quality and the quantity of the data have varied: in 1972 seven volumes totaling 3,238 pages were published on the 1970 census. In contrast, the results of the 1979 census were published more than five years later in a single volume of 366 pages.

According to the census of 1989, on the day of the census, January 12, the population of the Soviet Union was estimated to be 286,717,000. This figure maintained the country's long-standing position as the world's third most populous country after China and India. In the intercensal period (1979-88), the population of the Soviet Union grew from 262.4 million to 286.7 million, a 9 percent increase.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union experienced declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, a trend toward smaller nuclear families, and increasing mobility and urbanization. Major problems associated with such factors as migration, tension among nationality groups, uneven fertility rates, and high infant and adult mortality became increasingly acute, and various social programs and incentives were introduced to deal with them.

===Religion===
Over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially [[Atheism|atheistic]] state, professed religious belief. [[Christianity]] and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism.

The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

==Government==
[[File:200px-Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png|thumbnail|200px|Coat of arms of the Soviet Union. The legend on the red ribbon repeats, in the fifteen national languages spoken in the original "republics," the final line from Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto: "Workers of all countries, unite!" The hammer-sickle device overspreading the world signifies the spread of Communism worldwide.]]
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union government]]''
The Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society through decisions made by the extremely authoritarian leading political institution in the country, the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU).

In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with other Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, which was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the Constitution of 1977, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs.

In practice, however, the government differed markedly from other Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of [[democratic centralism]]. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.

The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past.

The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the prime minister - was always a member of the Politburo. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers.

According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions.

The government lacked an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an [[Adversary proceeding|adversary court procedure]]. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than protecting individual rights.

The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial (''oblast'', ''krai'', and autonomous subdivisions), and district (''raion'') governments.

==History==
:''Main article: [[History of the Soviet Union]]''
===Lenin===
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd overthrew the imperial government in March 1917, leading to the formation of the Provisional Government, which intended to establish democracy in Russia. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (''soviets'') sprang up across the country. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir I. Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets, and they seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the ensuing Civil War (1918-21) and foreign intervention was the new communist government secure.

From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating influence and isolating his rivals within the party, [[Joseph Stalin|Joseph V. Stalin]] became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.

===Stalin===
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|225px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]], the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate [[militant atheism]] and eradicate [[religion]].<ref name=Hesemann-Strieber>{{cite book|author=Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber|title=The Fatima Secret|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tx-BEpkJBq8C&pg=PT107&dq=Joseph+Stalin+militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=-DeRTpLrJoPi0QHo88wi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Stalin%20militant%20atheism&f=false|quote=Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread [[atheism]] and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.|publisher=Random House Digital, Inc.|date=2000|accessdate=09 October 2011}}</ref> See also: [[Atheism]] ]]
In 1928 [[Joseph Stalin]] introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture, the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms. These sweeping economic innovations produced widespread misery, and millions of peasants perished during forced collectivization. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s when Stalin began a purge of the party; out of this purge grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions of people from all walks of life. Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.

===World War II===
Stalin tried to divide up [[Central Europe]] with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The USSR took over the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and the eastern borderlands (Polish: 'Kresy') of Poland, while going to war with [Finland]]. Communists across the world ended their diatribes against fascism, while Stalin provided the German war machine with supplies of oil and grain. Europe was not big enough for two dictators, so in June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The U.S. and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin to fight the Nazis, and poured in [[Lend Lease]] aid. After many humiliating defeats and the loss of three mission soldiers, the Red Army finally stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43 and then all of [[Central Europe]] before Germany surrendered in 1945. Although severely ravaged in the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as one of the world's great powers.
===Cold War===
During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, using resourcs stripped from defeated Germany. The Red Army imposed Communist political control over postwar [[Central Europe]] and the Balkans, except for Yugoslavia and Albania. The active Soviet foreign policy helped bring about the [[Cold War]], starting about 1947, which turned its wartime allies, Britain and the United States, into foes. Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953.
===Khrushchev===
[[File:Nikita Krushchev.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikita Khrushchev]] liked to threaten and bully, often using "brinkmanship" (the threat of nuclear weapons); ''Time'' Sept. 8, 1961]]

see: [[Nikita Khrushchev]]

After three years of a join leadership, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] seized power, denounced Stalin's use of terror and effectively reduced repressive controls over party and society. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964.

===Brezhnev ===
Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, which lasted until [[Leonid Brezhnev|Leonid I. Brezhnev]] established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of détente with the rest of the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of [[détente]] in the late 1970s. Also contributing to the end of détente was the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]] in December 1979.

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of cautious conservatism and aversion to change. Brezhnev was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov.

===Reagan challenge===
Friction with other Western countries continued in the 1980's, especially with the United States and its new president, [[Ronald Reagan]], who saw the Soviet Union for what it was and branded it an "evil empire," partially in response to the Afghanistan occupation. Reagan negotiated with West Germany to provide sites for the basing of Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow. A short period of confrontation existed between the two superpowers during the period of late-1983 through 1984, beginning with the tragic Soviet attack on a commercial airliner, [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], over international waters near Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983, and killing 269 civilians, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, [[Larry McDonald]]; this was followed by events within a military exercise known as Able Archer, in which a falling satellite was mistaken for an incoming ICBM and almost triggered a major war. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a space-based missile defense system critics derisively dubbed "Star Wars" as well as his expansion of the United States military, also prompted a new, expensive arms race.

Andropov and his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, kept the communist system under Brezhnev intact, but upon Chernenko's death [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became party chairman.

===Gorbachev and the end of Communism===
see [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]

A reformer, he introduced a series of economic and political reforms known as ''[[glasnost]]'' ("openess") and ''[[perestroika]]'' ("restructuring"), which began to creak open the doors of the Soviet's closed system. A failed attempt to reign in the three [[Baltic States]] in 1989 led to a domino-effect of [[Warsaw Pact]] countries abandoning communism; a coup attempt against Gorbachev in 1991 by hard-liners trying to keep their tattering empire ended within days. The USSR was formally dissolved on Christmas day 1991 by [[Boris Yeltsin]], freeing many from its tyranny. The main successor state to the Soviet Union is [[Russia]]; the effort to form a "Commonwealth of Independent States" went nowhere, and the 15 republics of the USSR are now independent states.

==See Also==
*[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]
*[[Soviet Union government]]
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[KAL 007: the Russian Federation support for a water landing]] The Soviet Staff and military communications evidence
*[[Soviet Officers of KAL 007 Shootdown]]
*[[KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts]]
*[[KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown]]
*[[Anatoly Kornukov]]
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]]
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1990)
* Ingram, Philip. ''Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-1905-1991-Cambridge-History-Programme/dp/0521568676/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232394134&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Keep, John L. H. ''Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/25055927?title=Last%20of%20the%20Empires%3a%20A%20History%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201945-1991 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''The Soviet Union: 1917-1991'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54365219 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Who's Who in Russia since 1900,'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/103052094?title=Who's%20Who%20in%20Russia%20since%201900 online edition]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396454&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]
===Lenin and Stalin===
* Bullock, Alan. ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (1992), a double biography covering each man in separate but parallel chapters
* Lee, Stephen J. ''Stalin and the Soviet Union'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/108215209?title=Stalin%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Stalin and Stalinism'' (3rd ed 2003), 172pp
* Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'' (2004), along with Tucker the standard biography
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002)
* Tucker, Robert C. ''Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929'' (1973); ''Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103246514 online edition] with Service, a standard biography; [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Ulam, A. B. ''Stalin'' (1973), good older biography; replaced by Tucker and Service
* Wood, Alan. ''Stalin and Stalinism'', (2004), 105pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108863368 online edition]
===Peoples, society, culture===
* Cole, J. P. ''Geography of the Soviet Union'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/7724372?title=Geography%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Davis, Nathaniel. ''A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/30537968?title=A%20Long%20Walk%20to%20Church%3a%20A%20Contemporary%20History%20of%20Russian%20Orthodoxy online edition]
* Denber, Rachel. ''The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/97474829?title=The%20Soviet%20Nationality%20Reader%3a%20The%20Disintegration%20in%20Context online edition]
* Lane, David. ''Soviet Society under Perestroika'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/103443652?title=Soviet%20Society%20under%20Perestroika online edition]
* Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky. ''Women, Work, and Family in the Soviet Union'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/read/106056669?title=Women%2c%20Work%2c%20and%20Family%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Lutz, Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei Scherbov, Andrei Volkov. ''Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union before 1991'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/103849492?title=Demographic%20Trends%20and%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20before%201991 online edition]
* Wixman, Ronald. ''The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/582240?title=The%20Peoples%20of%20the%20USSR%3a%20An%20Ethnographic%20Handbook online edition]

===1918-1939===
* Daniels, R. V., ed. ''The Stalin Revolution'' (1965)
* Davies, Sarah, and James Harris, eds. ''Stalin: A New History,'' (2006), 310pp, 14 specialized essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-New-History-Sarah-Davies/dp/0521616530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* De Jonge, Alex. ''Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union'' (1986)
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. ''Stalinism: New Directions,'' (1999), 396pp excerpts from many scholars on the impact of Stalinism on the people (little on Stalin himself) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109468478 online edition]
* Hoffmann, David L. ed. ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings,'' (2002) essays by 12 scholars
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Tucker, Robert. ''Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Historical-Interpretation-Robert-Tucker/dp/0765804832/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876953&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]

===[[Gulag]] and Terror===
* Applebaum, Anne. ''Gulag: A History.'' 2003. 736 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-ANNE-APPLEBAUM/dp/B0007NMYPY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494284&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/read/79044140?title=The%20Great%20Terror%3a%20A%20Reassessment online edition]
* Pohl, J. Otto. ''Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/9465022?title=Ethnic%20Cleansing%20in%20the%20USSR%2c%201937-1949 online edition]
* Rosefielde, Steven. "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" ''Europe-Asia Studies,'' Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136(199609)48%3A6%3C959%3ASIPPNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

===World War II===
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review], on the Holocaust
* Broekmeyer, Marius. ''Stalin, the Russians, and Their War, 1941-1945.'' 2004. 315 pp.
* Overy, Richard. ''The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.'' 2004. 448 pp. focus on 1930-45 [http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Hitlers-Germany-Stalins-Russia/dp/B000FTCH5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494219&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Priestland, David. ''Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Politics-Mobilization-David-Priestland/dp/0199245134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494105&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Roberts, Geoffrey. ''Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953'' (2006).

===Cold War===
* see [[Cold War]]
* Craig, Campbell, and Yuri Smirnov. ''Truman, Stalin, and the Bomb'' (2008)
* Gaddis, John. ''A New History of the Cold War'' (2006)
* Holloway, David. ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Bomb-Soviet-Atomic-1939-1956/dp/0300066643/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876689&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98422373 online edition] [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
===Khruschev, Gorbachev===
* Brown, Archie. ''The Gorbachev Factor'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/109878423?title=The%20Gorbachev%20Factor online edition]
* Dallin, Alexander, and Gail W. Lapidus. ''The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/100838053?title=The%20Soviet%20System%3a%20From%20Crisis%20to%20Collapse online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2005), by leading conservative [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0812974891/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Library of Congress detailed country study on the Soviet Union]
*[http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/intro2.html The Soviet Union and the United States]
*State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html "On the Crimean Tatars"], The Kremlin, May 11, 1944.
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ The Secret Soviet Missions to KAL 007 at Moneron Island]

[[category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact Members]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Man-made Disasters]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2015-05-12T04:30:01Z

Burke39: The Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic was founded in 1917. But the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not founded until 1922. Russia and the Soviet Union were not the same thing.

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Soviet Union''' (Russian: Советский Союз, ''Sovyetskiy Soyuz''), formally the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' (or '''USSR''') (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, ''Soyuz Sovietskykh Sotsialisticheskykh Respublik'', abbreviated ''СССР'') existed 1922-1991, then broke into 15 separate countries, most notably [[Russia]]. It was the most powerful established [[socialist]] state in history, coming to power under [[Lenin]] in 1918 and killing millions of its citizens to establish a ruthless Communist dictatorship under [[Joseph Stalin]] in the 1930s. After cooperating with the USSR (1939-41), the Nazi Germans under [[Adolf Hitler]] invaded in a war to the death. The USSR defeated the Nazis in [[World War II]] (1941-45), and took control of most of [[Central Europe]], turning formerly independent countries into Communist satellite states. It was the primary antagonist of the United States during the [[Cold War]] (1947-1989); it then collapsed because of American pressure and its own internal economic and social failures. At its height the USSR covered one-sixth of the earth's land area, stretching from [[Central Europe]] across [[Eastern Europe]] and northern Asia to the Pacific Ocean. Although Russia and most of Soviet republics are [[Western world]] countries, during the Soviet period, a war was declared on Christianity, the country wanted to cut its Western roots and create a brand new civilisation, a communist utopia.

==Geography==
[[File:Siberian cat.jpg|thumbnail|300px|The [[Siberia]]n [[cat]] is the national cat of [[Russia]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bugsy_outside4.jpg Wikimedia commons], photographer: Jan Warner, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
Located in the middle and northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union's 22.4 million square kilometers included one-sixth of the earth's usable land area. Its western portion (European part of Russia), more than half of all European landmass, made up 25% of Russia's total area. European part of Russia (European Russia), however, was where 72% of the people lived and where most industrial and agricultural activities were concentrated. The largest region was the lightly populated [[Siberia]], a land between the Urals and the Pacific that for centuries was infamous as a place of exile, a land of endless expanses of snow and frigid temperatures.

Extending for over 60,000 kilometers, the Soviet border was the world's longest national frontier, sharing a common border with twelve countries, six on each continent. In Asia, its neighbors were the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] (North Korea), [[China]], [[Mongolia]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]]; in [[Europe]], it bordered [[Romania]], [[Hungary]], [[Czechoslovakia]] (now [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]]), [[Poland]], [[Norway]], and [[Finland]].

Approximately two-thirds of the frontier was bounded by water, forming the longest and, owing to its proximity to the North Pole, probably the most useless coastline of any country. Apart from Murmansk, which receives the warm currents of the Gulf Stream, the northern coast is locked in ice much of the year. The search for a warm water port was a central theme throughout Russian history.

A dozen seas, part of the water systems of three oceans--the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific--washed over Soviet shores.
*Size: Approximately 22,402,200 square kilometers (land area 22, 272,000 square kilometers); slightly less than 2.5 times size of United States.
*Location: Occupies eastern portion of European continent and northern portion of Asian continent. Most of country north of 50° north latitude.
*Topography: Vast steppe with low hills west of Ural Mountains; extensive coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; deserts in Central Asia; mountains along southern boundaries.
*Climate: Generally temperate to Arctic continental. Winters vary from short and cold along Black Sea to long and frigid in Siberia. Summers vary from hot in southern deserts to cool along Arctic coast. Weather usually harsh and unpredictable. Generally dry with more than half of country receiving fewer than forty centimeters of rainfall per year, most of Soviet Central Asia northeastern Siberia receiving only half that amount.
*Land Boundaries: 19,933 kilometers total: Afghanistan 2,384 kilometers' China 7,520 kilometers; Czechoslovakia 98 kilometers; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 17 kilometers; Finland 1,313 kilometers, Hungary 135 kilometers; Iran 1,690 kilometers; Mongolia 3,441 kilometers; Norway 196 kilometers; Poland 1,215 kilometers; Romania 1,307 kilometers; and Turkey 617 kilometers.
*Water Boundaries: 42,777 kilometers washed by oceanic systems of Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific.
*Land Use: 11 percent of land arable; 16 percent meadows and pasture; 41 percent forest and woodland; and 32 percent other, including tundra.
*Natural Resources: Oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, timber, gold, manganese, lead, zinc, nickel, mercury, potash, phosphates, and most strategic minerals.

===Administrative-Political-Territorial Divisions===
The USSR was divided into fifteen union republics - the largest administrative and political units - officially known as Soviet republics or union republics. Theoretically they were independent countries; in practice they were controlled by the Kremlin. Nationality, size of the population, and location were the determinants for republic status. By far the largest and most important was the Russian Republic, containing about 51% of the population. In 1989 Russians made up over 51% of the Soviet population and were politically, economically and culturally the dominant nationality, there are more than 100 other nationality groups that make up Soviet society. Fourteen other major nationalities also have their own republics: in the European part are the [[Lithuania]]n, [[Latvia]]n, [[Estonia]]n, [[Belarus|Belarusian]], [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]], and [[Moldavia]]n republics; the [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n, [[Azerbaijan]], and [[Armenian]] republics occupy the Caucasus; and Soviet Central Asia is home to the [[Kazakhstan|Kazakh]], [[Uzbekistan|Uzbek]], [[Turkmenistan|Turkmen]], [[Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyz]], and [[Tajikistan|Tajik]] republics.

The Soviet republics were subdivided into administrative subdivisions called autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okruga, kraia, or most often oblasts. These subdivisions made the country easier to manage and some served to recognize additional nationalities.

==People==
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|right|The [[Nobel Prize]] winning [[Russia|Russian]] author [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was exiled from the Soviet Union due to his criticism of the Soviet government.]]
The official Soviet census of 1989 listed over 100 nationalities in the Soviet Union. Each had its own history, culture, and language. Each possessed its own sense of national identity and national consciousness. The position of each nationality in the Soviet Union depended to a large degree on its size, the percentage of the people using the national language as their first language, the degree of its integration into the Soviet society, and its territorial-administrative status. This position was also dependent on each nationality's share of membership in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU), the number of students in higher institutions, the number of scientific workers, and the urbanization of each nationality.

The various nationalities differed greatly in size. On the one hand, the [[Russia]]ns, who constituted about 50.8 percent of the population, numbered about 145 million in 1989. On the other hand, half of the nationalities listed in the census together accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total population, most of them having fewer than 100,000 people. Twenty-two nationalities had more than 1 million people each. Fifteen of the major nationalities had their own union republics, which together comprised the federation known as the Soviet Union.

The nationalities having union republic status commanded more political and economic power than other nationalities and found it easier to maintain their own language and culture. In 1989 some nationalities formed an overwhelming majority within their own republics; one nationality (the Kazakhs), however, lacked even a majority. In addition to the fifteen union republics, individual nationalities had their own territorial units, such as autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okruga. The remaining nationalities did not have territorial units of their own and in most cases only constituted minorities in the Russian Republic.

The nationalities that have had a significant political and economic impact on the Soviet Union include the fifteen nationalities that have their own union republics and the non-union republic nationalities that numbered at least 1 million people in 1989. They are the Slavic nationalities, the Baltic nationalities, the nationalities of the Caucasus, the Central Asian nationalities, and a few other nationalities.
*Population: 293,047,571 (1991 estimate). Average annual growth rate 0.9 percent. Density twelve persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of people lived west of Ural Mountains.
*Nationalities: 51 percent of population Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian, 6 percent Uzbek, nearly 4 percent Belorussian, and 24 percent about 100 other nationalities.
[[File:Bezhnoznik u stanka 15-1929.jpg|thumb|260px|A Soviet propaganda poster disseminated in the ''Bezbozhnik'' (''Atheist'') magazine depicting [[Jesus]] being dumped from a wheelbarrow by an industrial worker as well as a smashed church [[bell]]; the text advocates Industrialisation Day as an alternative replacement to the [[Christian]] Transfiguration Day. see: [[Militant atheism]] ]]
*Religions: Religious worship was authorized by Constitution, but Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology, was militantly [[Atheism|atheistic]] (see: [[Militant atheism]]). Reliable statistics are unavailable, but about 18 percent was Russian Orthodox; 17 percent Muslim; and nearly 7 percent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, and Jewish combined. Officially, most of remainder was atheist.
*Languages: Russian was the official language. Over 200 other languages and dialects were spoken, often as the primary tongue; 18 languages were spoken by groups of more than 1 million each. About 75 percent of people spoke Slavic languages.
*Education: Highly centralized school system with standardized curriculum. Attendance was compulsory through eleventh grade. Strong emphasis on training for vocations selected by central authorities. Indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist ideology at all levels. Science and technology emphasized at secondary level and above. As of 1979 census, official literacy rate 99.8 percent for persons between nine and forty-nine years old. Over 5.3 million studied at universities and institutes, nearly 50 percent part time. All education free, and in many cases students received stipends.
*Health and Welfare: Medical care by government health institutions; free, but of poor quality for general public despite having the highest number of physicians and hospital beds per capita in world. Welfare and pension programs provided, albeit marginally, for substantial segments of population.

===Population===
Seven official censuses have been taken in the Soviet Union (1920, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989). Both the quality and the quantity of the data have varied: in 1972 seven volumes totaling 3,238 pages were published on the 1970 census. In contrast, the results of the 1979 census were published more than five years later in a single volume of 366 pages.

According to the census of 1989, on the day of the census, January 12, the population of the Soviet Union was estimated to be 286,717,000. This figure maintained the country's long-standing position as the world's third most populous country after China and India. In the intercensal period (1979-88), the population of the Soviet Union grew from 262.4 million to 286.7 million, a 9 percent increase.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union experienced declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, a trend toward smaller nuclear families, and increasing mobility and urbanization. Major problems associated with such factors as migration, tension among nationality groups, uneven fertility rates, and high infant and adult mortality became increasingly acute, and various social programs and incentives were introduced to deal with them.

===Religion===
Over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially [[Atheism|atheistic]] state, professed religious belief. [[Christianity]] and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism.

The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

==Government==
[[File:200px-Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg.png|thumbnail|200px|Coat of arms of the Soviet Union. The legend on the red ribbon repeats, in the fifteen national languages spoken in the original "republics," the final line from Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto: "Workers of all countries, unite!" The hammer-sickle device overspreading the world signifies the spread of Communism worldwide.]]
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union government]]''
The Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society through decisions made by the extremely authoritarian leading political institution in the country, the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU).

In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with other Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, which was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the Constitution of 1977, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs.

In practice, however, the government differed markedly from other Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of [[democratic centralism]]. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.

The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past.

The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the prime minister - was always a member of the Politburo. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers.

According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions.

The government lacked an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an [[Adversary proceeding|adversary court procedure]]. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than protecting individual rights.

The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial (''oblast'', ''krai'', and autonomous subdivisions), and district (''raion'') governments.

==History==
:''Main article: [[History of the Soviet Union]]''
===Lenin===
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd overthrew the imperial government in March 1917, leading to the formation of the Provisional Government, which intended to establish democracy in Russia. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (''soviets'') sprang up across the country. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir I. Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets, and they seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the ensuing Civil War (1918-21) and foreign intervention was the new communist government secure.

From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating influence and isolating his rivals within the party, [[Joseph Stalin|Joseph V. Stalin]] became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.

===Stalin===
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|225px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]], the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate [[militant atheism]] and eradicate [[religion]].<ref name=Hesemann-Strieber>{{cite book|author=Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber|title=The Fatima Secret|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tx-BEpkJBq8C&pg=PT107&dq=Joseph+Stalin+militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=-DeRTpLrJoPi0QHo88wi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Joseph%20Stalin%20militant%20atheism&f=false|quote=Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread [[atheism]] and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.|publisher=Random House Digital, Inc.|date=2000|accessdate=09 October 2011}}</ref> See also: [[Atheism]] ]]
In 1928 [[Joseph Stalin]] introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture, the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms. These sweeping economic innovations produced widespread misery, and millions of peasants perished during forced collectivization. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s when Stalin began a purge of the party; out of this purge grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions of people from all walks of life. Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.

===World War II===
Stalin tried to divide up [[Central Europe]] with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The USSR took over the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and the eastern borderlands (Polish: 'Kresy') of Poland, while going to war with [Finland]]. Communists across the world ended their diatribes against fascism, while Stalin provided the German war machine with supplies of oil and grain. Europe was not big enough for two dictators, so in June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The U.S. and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin to fight the Nazis, and poured in [[Lend Lease]] aid. After many humiliating defeats and the loss of three mission soldiers, the Red Army finally stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43 and then all of [[Central Europe]] before Germany surrendered in 1945. Although severely ravaged in the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as one of the world's great powers.
===Cold War===
During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, using resourcs stripped from defeated Germany. The Red Army imposed Communist political control over postwar [[Central Europe]] and the Balkans, except for Yugoslavia and Albania. The active Soviet foreign policy helped bring about the [[Cold War]], starting about 1947, which turned its wartime allies, Britain and the United States, into foes. Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953.
===Khrushchev===
[[File:Nikita Krushchev.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikita Khrushchev]] liked to threaten and bully, often using "brinkmanship" (the threat of nuclear weapons); ''Time'' Sept. 8, 1961]]

see: [[Nikita Khrushchev]]

After three years of a join leadership, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] seized power, denounced Stalin's use of terror and effectively reduced repressive controls over party and society. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964.

===Brezhnev ===
Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, which lasted until [[Leonid Brezhnev|Leonid I. Brezhnev]] established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of détente with the rest of the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of [[détente]] in the late 1970s. Also contributing to the end of détente was the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]] in December 1979.

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of cautious conservatism and aversion to change. Brezhnev was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov.

===Reagan challenge===
Friction with other Western countries continued in the 1980's, especially with the United States and its new president, [[Ronald Reagan]], who saw the Soviet Union for what it was and branded it an "evil empire," partially in response to the Afghanistan occupation. Reagan negotiated with West Germany to provide sites for the basing of Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow. A short period of confrontation existed between the two superpowers during the period of late-1983 through 1984, beginning with the tragic Soviet attack on a commercial airliner, [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], over international waters near Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983, and killing 269 civilians, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, [[Larry McDonald]]; this was followed by events within a military exercise known as Able Archer, in which a falling satellite was mistaken for an incoming ICBM and almost triggered a major war. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a space-based missile defense system critics derisively dubbed "Star Wars" as well as his expansion of the United States military, also prompted a new, expensive arms race.

Andropov and his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, kept the communist system under Brezhnev intact, but upon Chernenko's death [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became party chairman.

===Gorbachev and the end of Communism===
see [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]

A reformer, he introduced a series of economic and political reforms known as ''[[glasnost]]'' ("openess") and ''[[perestroika]]'' ("restructuring"), which began to creak open the doors of the Soviet's closed system. A failed attempt to reign in the three [[Baltic States]] in 1989 led to a domino-effect of [[Warsaw Pact]] countries abandoning communism; a coup attempt against Gorbachev in 1991 by hard-liners trying to keep their tattering empire ended within days. The USSR was formally dissolved on Christmas day 1991 by [[Boris Yeltsin]], freeing many from its tyranny. The main successor state to the Soviet Union is [[Russia]]; the effort to form a "Commonwealth of Independent States" went nowhere, and the 15 republics of the USSR are now independent states.

==See Also==
*[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]
*[[Soviet Union government]]
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[KAL 007: the Russian Federation support for a water landing]] The Soviet Staff and military communications evidence
*[[Soviet Officers of KAL 007 Shootdown]]
*[[KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts]]
*[[KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown]]
*[[Anatoly Kornukov]]
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]]
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1990)
* Ingram, Philip. ''Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-1905-1991-Cambridge-History-Programme/dp/0521568676/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232394134&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Keep, John L. H. ''Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/25055927?title=Last%20of%20the%20Empires%3a%20A%20History%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201945-1991 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''The Soviet Union: 1917-1991'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54365219 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Who's Who in Russia since 1900,'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/103052094?title=Who's%20Who%20in%20Russia%20since%201900 online edition]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396454&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]
===Lenin and Stalin===
* Bullock, Alan. ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (1992), a double biography covering each man in separate but parallel chapters
* Lee, Stephen J. ''Stalin and the Soviet Union'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/108215209?title=Stalin%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Stalin and Stalinism'' (3rd ed 2003), 172pp
* Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'' (2004), along with Tucker the standard biography
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002)
* Tucker, Robert C. ''Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929'' (1973); ''Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103246514 online edition] with Service, a standard biography; [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Ulam, A. B. ''Stalin'' (1973), good older biography; replaced by Tucker and Service
* Wood, Alan. ''Stalin and Stalinism'', (2004), 105pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108863368 online edition]
===Peoples, society, culture===
* Cole, J. P. ''Geography of the Soviet Union'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/7724372?title=Geography%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Davis, Nathaniel. ''A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/30537968?title=A%20Long%20Walk%20to%20Church%3a%20A%20Contemporary%20History%20of%20Russian%20Orthodoxy online edition]
* Denber, Rachel. ''The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/97474829?title=The%20Soviet%20Nationality%20Reader%3a%20The%20Disintegration%20in%20Context online edition]
* Lane, David. ''Soviet Society under Perestroika'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/103443652?title=Soviet%20Society%20under%20Perestroika online edition]
* Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky. ''Women, Work, and Family in the Soviet Union'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/read/106056669?title=Women%2c%20Work%2c%20and%20Family%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Lutz, Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei Scherbov, Andrei Volkov. ''Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union before 1991'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/103849492?title=Demographic%20Trends%20and%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20before%201991 online edition]
* Wixman, Ronald. ''The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/582240?title=The%20Peoples%20of%20the%20USSR%3a%20An%20Ethnographic%20Handbook online edition]

===1918-1939===
* Daniels, R. V., ed. ''The Stalin Revolution'' (1965)
* Davies, Sarah, and James Harris, eds. ''Stalin: A New History,'' (2006), 310pp, 14 specialized essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-New-History-Sarah-Davies/dp/0521616530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* De Jonge, Alex. ''Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union'' (1986)
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. ''Stalinism: New Directions,'' (1999), 396pp excerpts from many scholars on the impact of Stalinism on the people (little on Stalin himself) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109468478 online edition]
* Hoffmann, David L. ed. ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings,'' (2002) essays by 12 scholars
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Tucker, Robert. ''Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Historical-Interpretation-Robert-Tucker/dp/0765804832/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876953&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]

===[[Gulag]] and Terror===
* Applebaum, Anne. ''Gulag: A History.'' 2003. 736 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-ANNE-APPLEBAUM/dp/B0007NMYPY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494284&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/read/79044140?title=The%20Great%20Terror%3a%20A%20Reassessment online edition]
* Pohl, J. Otto. ''Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/9465022?title=Ethnic%20Cleansing%20in%20the%20USSR%2c%201937-1949 online edition]
* Rosefielde, Steven. "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" ''Europe-Asia Studies,'' Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136(199609)48%3A6%3C959%3ASIPPNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

===World War II===
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review], on the Holocaust
* Broekmeyer, Marius. ''Stalin, the Russians, and Their War, 1941-1945.'' 2004. 315 pp.
* Overy, Richard. ''The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.'' 2004. 448 pp. focus on 1930-45 [http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Hitlers-Germany-Stalins-Russia/dp/B000FTCH5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494219&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Priestland, David. ''Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Politics-Mobilization-David-Priestland/dp/0199245134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494105&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Roberts, Geoffrey. ''Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953'' (2006).

===Cold War===
* see [[Cold War]]
* Craig, Campbell, and Yuri Smirnov. ''Truman, Stalin, and the Bomb'' (2008)
* Gaddis, John. ''A New History of the Cold War'' (2006)
* Holloway, David. ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Bomb-Soviet-Atomic-1939-1956/dp/0300066643/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876689&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98422373 online edition] [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
===Khruschev, Gorbachev===
* Brown, Archie. ''The Gorbachev Factor'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/109878423?title=The%20Gorbachev%20Factor online edition]
* Dallin, Alexander, and Gail W. Lapidus. ''The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/100838053?title=The%20Soviet%20System%3a%20From%20Crisis%20to%20Collapse online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2005), by leading conservative [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0812974891/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Library of Congress detailed country study on the Soviet Union]
*[http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/intro2.html The Soviet Union and the United States]
*State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html "On the Crimean Tatars"], The Kremlin, May 11, 1944.
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ The Secret Soviet Missions to KAL 007 at Moneron Island]

[[category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact Members]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Man-made Disasters]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:25:18Z

Burke39: abbreviating links

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1]</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>[http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/]</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html]</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132/ CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981]</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/]</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:24:32Z

Burke39: abbreviating links

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1]</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>[http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/]</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html]</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132/ CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981]</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:20:26Z

Burke39: abbreviating links

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1]</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>[http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/]</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132/ CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981]</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:19:10Z

Burke39: Abbreviating links

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1]</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>[http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/]</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13]</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref> CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:18:35Z

Burke39: Abbreviating links. I'm eventually going to give all the links titles, but right now I'm more concerned about the fact they are to long and that doesn't look nice to the reader

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1]</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>[http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/]</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref> CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-12T04:17:18Z

Burke39: /* Inserting false information */

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:15:43Z

Burke39: Abbreviating references

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>[http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html]</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref> CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]

Cable News Network

2015-05-12T04:15:09Z

Burke39: abbreviating references

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is a [[liberal]], 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Japanese]], and [[Turkish]].
CNN was successful until around 2001, when Fox News began beating it in the ratings. Since then it has been failing.
==History==
CNN was founded by media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut on June 1, 1980 as the first 24-hour news network. <ref>http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the news divisions of ABC, NBC, CBS, and [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. In September 2010, head of its U.S. network Jon Klein was fired. <ref>[http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html]</ref> Ted Turner has sold CNN to Time Warner.

==Ratings and reception==
Although CNN was once the dominant network on cable news and one of the highest rated channels on cable television, this is no longer the case. In overall ratings, CNN is usually second place behind [[Fox News Channel]] but ahead of MSNBC<ref>[http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/12/30/cnn-ends-2014-firmly-ahead-of-msnbc-full-release/]</ref>.

By February 2014, CNN's average number of total viewers during the day from Monday to Sunday was 307,000 with 96,000 in the key 25 to 54 viewing demographic.<ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/february-2014-ratings-cnn-down-in-total-day-primetime_b214931]</ref> In 2013, the network fell to a 20-year low in primetime ratings and experienced its second-lowest year ever in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. That year, CNN also experienced its lowest total-day audience since 1992, and its lowest total-day 25 to 54 audience since 2000.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zucker-cnn-ratings-2014-1</ref> 2014 closed out with CNN having all-time ratings lows. In primetime, the network suffered its worst-rated year in total viewers and its second-lowest in the 25 to 54 viewing demographic. In total day, CNN received its worst-rated year in the key demographic.<ref>http://deadline.com/2014/12/cable-news-ratings-fox-news-channel-wins-13th-consecutive-year-1201338131/</ref>

==Bias==

In 2001, the [[Media Research Center]] stated, "CNN certainly is less biased to the left than ABC, CBS and NBC". <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cyberalert-08072001-dazzled-candid-clinton]</ref> However, it stated in the same report that "while much of its day-to-day reporting is more balanced than that offered on the broadcast networks, its news judgment usually follows the liberal agenda with conservatives relegated to reacting to it" and noted that it had some hosts on the network who clearly leaned to the left such as Larry King. And more recently, [[Conservative media]] critics, amongst other groups, rightly accuse CNN of promoting the [[Liberalism | liberal agenda]] with slanted reporting. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13</ref> CNN has mocked and insulted members of the [[Tea Party Movement]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/update-chicago-tea-party-crowd-confronts-cnn-reporter-after-hostile-interview/ UPDATE: CHICAGO TEA PARTY CROWD CONFRONTS CNN REPORTER AFTER HOSTILE INTERVIEW, Breitbart.tv, April 15, 2009]</ref> Their coverage of the US Election of 2012 has also made alarm bells ring in the minds of true journalists. CNN has supported the far-left [[Occupy Wall Street]] movement.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-debt/index.html</ref> [[Van Jones]] is also a contributor on CNN. On October 2013 CNN mocked veterans as "Tea Party Crazies".<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/13/CNN-derides-million-vet-march</ref>

CNN has had some conservative commentators in the past. For example, [[Rowland Evans]] and [[Robert Novak]] were conservatives who hosted a show on CNN called ''Evans and Novak'', later ''Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields'', and Novak also co-hosted a debate program called ''Capital Gang'', and he also co-hosted ''Crossfire'', and was a political commentator on CNN's general coverage. [[Tucker Carlson]], now at Fox News, was a CNN political analyst at one point. Another conservative on CNN was Kate O'Beirne. [[Barry Goldwater]] was a commentator for CNN at one point.<ref> CNN is a 24 hour video newspapers by Tony Seideman The Telegraphy May 16, 1981 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19810516&id=P6krAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4291,3826132</ref>

Today, [[Jeff Zucker]], its new leader, openly despises Fox News and the Republican Party<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeff-zucker-at-tca-fox-news-is-republican-party-masquerading-as-a-cable-news-channel/</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, in contrast to his predecessor Walter Isaacson, who tried to have balanced coverage<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/11/zucker-gop-cnn/</ref>, and another predecessor Tom Johnson, who was friends with [[Roger Ailes]], the leader of Fox News.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/what-obama-can-learn-from-roger-ailes/</ref>

==News Anchors==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Fareed Zakaria]]
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]

==See also==
*[[Seven Natural Wonders of the World]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal News Organizations]]